YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

DISCURSORY CONSIDERATIONS

THE HYPOTHESIS
OF DR. MACKNIGHT AND OTHERS,
THAT
ST LUKE'S GOSPEL
WAS THE FIRSt WRITTEN.
BT
A COUNTRY CLERGYMAN.
LONDON:

Printed by and for J. Nichols and Son,
Red Lion Passage, Fleet Street;
AND FOR 7. C. AND J. RITINGTON, ST. FAVL's CHURCH TARD t
T.PAYNE, PALLMALL; AND
nOANAVILLE AND FELL, NEW SONJ> STREET.
1808.

[ in ]

PREFACE.

1 WAS at first, very accidentally, excited to
consider some expressions, the import of which
had been questioned, in St. Luke's Preface ;
and I have, thence, been led on, impercepti
bly, through other circumstances of his Gos
pel, to the point, upon which I have now
ventured to offer to the Public these discursory,
or discursive *, Considerations.  They
* Johnson attributes to discursive the sense of " moving
here and there j roving j desultory;" and he explains dis
cursory as " argumental ; rational." He does not, how
ever, produce even a single example of discursory being so
A 2

have been thrown together hastily, and imper
fectly, when health and leisure would permit ;
iised in our language; while he refers, for its derivation,
to discursor, Lat, Now discursor, I believe, is not to be
found in any Latin writer of good authority,  Dis-
cursus is a word of frequent occurrence in the best
Authors ; but it is, always, in the sense of " a running to
and fro ; a wandering course ;" ¦ while the use of it,
as signifying, " a treatise ; discourse ; or argumentation,"
is branded in the " Index Vocum, ab iis, qui Latin^
scribere vehnt, vitandarum," as " carbone digna," 
Discurro and discurso, with their derivatives, as used by
the best Authors, signify " To run hither and thither, up
and down,"  1 might therefore well have retained my
original epithet, without fearing the censtire of the Verbal
Critic. It is not, however, my purpose either to vindicate
it, or to substitute another in its stead. I am only solici
tous to apprize the Reader, that, in ofiering to him the
following Considerations, as well as my former ones, it
neverwas in my idea to characterise them, as " argumenta
tive," or " rational," or as arranged with precision and
exactness, but as, in every respect, most completely "de-
Bultory,"— indeed, as I formerly intimated, "desultorily
colloquial." Disc, Cons, on St. Luke's Preface, p. 9,

and they are offered — at least they were intended
to have been offered — to the world with much
humility ; not as irrefragable conclusions, but
merely as hints, for the further consideration
of my learned Brethren, and of all zealously
curious Readers of the Gospels.  If they
have sometimes assumed a Tone of Confi
dence, beyond what I had proposed, it has
really been elicited from me, by my fancying,
that the ground which I had to rest on fully
justified it : nor could I bring myself to alter
it, from a wish to conciliate, by assuming the
more becoming language of humility and diffi
dence, when my real feelings had risen above
it.  The enquiry, I confess, has been pleas
ing to me in its process ; and, I may add, it
has been satisfactory in its result. It induces
me cordially to accede to the Hypothesis, of
St. Luke's having been " the earliest writer of a
Gospel ;" — at least, till it may be shown, that
such Hypothesis is visionary, untenable, or

[ vi ]
dangerous. — — If it is a mere imaginary " Vi
sion," I care not how soon its " baseless fabric"
be demolished. — But, in the mean time, I am
its willing Proselyte. I see, with Macknight,
" the beautiful Propriety" resulting from it to
the three First Gospels; — I see a lucid Order,
of" primary" and "supplemental," succeeding to
a questionable state, in which internal Evidence
resisted external Testimony ; — I see a highly
IMPROVED and, hence, most complete accord
ance subsisting between the several Evangelists,
both in their matter, and manner of writing ;
— I see every difficulty smoothed, and every
little trifling objection removed:  On the
whole, I see such a divine effect flowing from
the Gospels, thus read in their proper order, —
thereby at once mutually illustrating and ma
terially corroborating each other, — that the
rationally pious reader of the New Testament,
THUS perusing the four several inspired memoirs
of our Master's Birth, Life, Death, Resurrection,

[ vii ]
and Ascension, must feel his heart, like that
of the holy Evangelist, (for whose hitherto ill-
appreciated Eminence I have been led to stand
forth an Advocate,) burn within him, with
all the vital warmth of perfect Faith, under
the all-powerful radiance of divine Truth.

Feb. 1st, 1808.

DISCURSORY CONSIDERATIONS,
&(c. &(c.

JriAVING before ventured to
question* the " supposed Evidence of the
Early Fathers, that St. Matthew's Gospel was
the first written," — I now proceed to consider^
the opposite hypothesis, of Dr. Macknight and
others, that " St. Luke published his Gospel,
before Matthew and Mark wrote theirs." 
I say, " of Dr. Macknight And others ;" for,
although what he advanced on this subject, half
a century ago, has been little, if at all, attended
to by any subsequent Theological writers, the
opinion appears to have originated soon after
the Reformation, and was maintained, by
learned and able men, with arguments, which
* " DiscuRSOKY Considerations, on the supposed
Evidence of the early Fathers, that St. Matthew's Gospel
was the first written, 1806." B

C 2 ]
have been justly characterised, as " by no means
to be treated with contempt."
Calvin, in the prefate to his Harmony of
the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke,
declared it to be his opinion, that neither Mark
nor Luke had seen the Gospel of St. Matthew,
when they wrote their own Gospels. (See
Lardner, vol. VI. p. 223.)  Beza went fur
ther ; and, in the earliest editions of his New
Testament, argued, from the words of St. Luke's
Preface, that he certainly was an earlier writer
than either * Matthew or Mark : for which he
was branded by the Jesuit Maldonat, who
intimates that both the Author and his
* The conclusion of Beza's note, on 'Eitex^iftKrav, ag-
gressi sunt, Luke i. 1, in his two first editions of the New
Testament, the Latin 1556, and the Greek 1559, is as
follows i—^" sciamus minimfe id praestitisse quod erant ag-
gressi : nam aUoquin quid aliud Lucas testaretur, quam
se veUe actum (quod aiunt) agere? Ergo nec Mat-
TH.ffi;us NEC Marcus ante Lucam scripssrunt, de
quibus procul dubio magis honorific^ esset locutus, ut qui
nobis putidas quasdam nugas sub Nicodemi, Nazarseorum,
Thomse, Mgyjiiiorvm, Protevangelii titulis obtrudunt,
Tiderint quam bene de Ecclesi§l Dei mereantur." — tlie
same note is repeated, in nearly the exact words, in the
gdiUon of 1583.

[ 3 ]
opinion were dangerously heretical *, 
That opinion, I trust, may now be candidly
considered, without any such imputation : and
I have much confidence, that this may be done
not only salvd, Re Ecclesiasticd, and without
any detriment whatever to the requisite belief
of our Established Church, but in the closest
accordance with it. I would hope, that the
question being brought to a determination
might conduce to the material advancement and
enlargement of Christian Faith in general. —
Beza, in his later editions, relaxed from his
first positive affirmation : only observing, in
some of them, that, from the words of his pre
face, " it might perhaps be collected, that Luke
wrote his History before Matthew or Mark ;"
and, in his latest edition, being contented to
remark, that " it cannot fairly be collected
hence, that Luke published his Gospel after
* " Scio nostro tempore haereticum quendam aflBrmasse,
Lucam primum omnium scripsisse, idque ex ejus praefe-
tione probare voluisse, Sed si haereticis crederemus, nihil
in ipsS. etiam religione certum, stabUeque haberemus."
Maldonat, Pe.efat. in Comment, in Quatuor Evangelistas^
c„ iv,
B 2

C 4 ]
Matthew and Mark had written theirs *.** —
That he thus receded, gradually, so far from
his first positive affirmation, I cannot but attri
bute to his argument meeting with much oppo-
* In Beza's fourth editiort, 1588, as it now hes
before me, the note is new modelled ; and it is marked
With an asterisk, to indicate that it is so.  — ' —
" Sciamus minimfe id satis commodfe praestitisse quod
erant agressi ; sed aliunde accepta confusfe perscripsisse,
Nec taraen fortasse Lucas Ulas fabidosas et putidas ac
etiam impias narrationea intellexit, quas jampridem sub
Nicodemi, Nazaraeorum, Thomae, .ffigyptiorum, Prote
vangelii ncaaainibus editas, et damnatats, nonnuUi mrsum
nostro saeculo reponunt. Sed et forsitan ex hoe loco
Htcunque coUigi potest, Lucam ante Matthjeum et
Marcum hang suam hjstoriam edidisse."  This
note is repeated, I beheve, in the same form in the edition
of 1594; at least the concluding part, which we are now
Concerned vrith, is precisely the same ; " Forsitan ex hoc
loco utcunque, &c,"  In the last edition published
by himself, 1598, in his 80th year, his Note is somewhat
abbreviated, and concludes thus; " quod istos ait Lucas
non satis commodfe praestitisse : minimfe tamen, opinor,
febulosas, imb etiam impias narrationes inteUigens tandem
Ecclesiae sub Nicodemi, Nazaraeorum, Thomae, iEgyp-
tiorum, Protevangelii nominibus impudentissimfe obtrusas.
Nec tamen hinc recte colligitur, Lucam post
Matthjeum et Marcum hang suam historiam edi-
BISSE,"

[ 5 ]
sition, and but little support, in the forty-two^
years that intervened between the first publica
tion of his Translation and Notes, in 1556, and
the last edition of the New Testament published
by himself in 1 598. — In the earlier part of
the next century, however, the hypothesis, of
St. Luke's being the first writer of a Gospel,
seems to have gained ground. — Grotius speaks
of it as the decided opinion of" certain persons *,"
at the time he wrote his Commentaries ; and
we may judge, from the ardor with which he
combats the opinion, that they were persons of
weight and ''authority. This was really the
case. This opinion was zealously and ably
maintained by F. Gomar, the celebrated Dutch
Calvinist, and the great antagonist of Grotius
in the religious divisions of that country. Go-
mar died in 1641 ; and his works were pub-
* " (Quod auiDAM existimant, Matthaeo et Marco
priorem in scribendo Lucam fuisse, planfe ut credam in
due! non possum, Eefragatur vetustissimus Ubronim ordo
apud omnes nationes ; refragatur traditio vetus, Irenaeo
et TertulUano testibus sufii4ta ; refragatur ipse Lucas, qui
ita Matthaei et Marci historiam auxit additis narrationi-
bus, ut, ubi res easdem narrat, eadem quoque verba nop
xsxh Hsurpet." Grotius Ad Lucam, i, 1.

[ 6 ]
lished by D. Heinsius in three volumes folio *,
in 1645. — The first volume contains " Expla
nations of important and select passages in the
Gospels of St. Matthew and St. John ; and in
the two first Chapters of that of St. Luke."
 The Preface of the latter is especially
considered ; and a little Tractate is subjoined,
" De scriptionis Evangelii Lucae, cum Matthaeo
et Marco coUati, tempore." In this Gomar
takes up the idea of Beza, (as he had modelled
it in his fourth edition, of 1588-1-,) and asserts
that the conclusion which he (Beza) thought
" might perhaps" be deduced from Luke's pre
face, was a feet certainly to be ascertained ; add
ing thereto other arguments to prove the same.
 As a specimen of Gomar's arguments, and
¦* Heinsius, in some verses prefixed. In obitum F,
Gomari, &c. thus characterises him ;
Fax veritatis, veritatis augustae
Scrutator iHe, cedere inscius cuiquam.
Cum vpcem, et ora scriptaque hand mori nata
Deo, sed uni, consecrata Ubertas
Poposcit, 
f It iriust, 1 think, be supposed that Gomar had not
seen, or at least had not minutely attended to, the earher
d itions of Beza's New Testament ; in vvhich he had
positively affirmed the- priority of Luke's Gospel,

[ 7 ]
-of his manner of maintaining them, I here ex
hibit the opening of his Tractate, in a free
translation; subjoining the original in a note
below *. — " Most of the antient Fathers lay it

*  " Plerique veterum Patrum, Matthaeum ante
Marcum, et himc ante Lucam Evangelium suum scrip
sisse, atatuunt: adeo, ut velinsciti^, vel temeritate labo-
rare videri possit, qui non iis assentiatur, Doctissimus
tamen Beza in contrariam sententiam inclinat : sic enim
in annot, majo, ad vers, l,ait: sed hoc forsitan ex hoc
loco utcunque coUigi potest, Lu.c<im ante Matth. quoque
et Marcum hanc suam historiam edidisse .: quod san^ non
solum ut verisimile, sed etiam verum omnino arbitramur.
—Primum quia (ut vers, 1. demonstratum, — see
Gomar, vol, I. p. 98.) ante Lucam qui Evangelicam
historiam componere aggressi sunt, eam non rectS
eomposuenmt, Matthaeus et Marcus verb eam teeth com"
posuerunt. Ergo iUi non ante Lucam Evangehi histo
riam composuermit.  Deinde quod vers. 2. dicitur,
prout tradiderunt nobis, &c. ; quo Apostoli ab iUis, qui
vers. 1. dicuntur conati componere historiam Evauigelii,
apert& distinguuntur. Cumque traditio haec ad praedica-
tionem, non autem ad scriptionem, referatur ; ut res ipsa
indicat et communis omnium consensus, inde etiam clarfe
cognoscitur, Apostolos tum temporis Evangeha sua scripto
nondum promulg^se, quos alioqui, ut &, temerariis iUis
ac multis scriptoribus distinguerentur, Lucas non ftiisset
praeteriturus.  Denique si Matthaeus et Marcus ante
Jdicam sua scripsissent Evangeha, Theophilus, ad .quem

[ 8 ]
down as a certainty, that Matthew wrote his
Gospel before Mark ; and that Mark wrote his
Gospel before Luke : so that whoever does not
accede to this, seems liable to incur the impu
tation of ignorance or presumption. Yet the
yery learned Beza inclines to the contrary opi
nion ; for he thus expresses himself, in his
principal note on the first verse (i. e. of Luke's
Preface) : ' From this place, hoivever, we may
perhaps collect, that Luke published his history
before both Matthew and Mark ;' — which that
he actually did, in my opinion, is not only
probable, but the real truth. — In thejlrst place ;
jaecause, (as has been shown already, in consi
dering the first verse,) they, who had taken in
hand to write a Gospel History before Luke,
wrote it with many imperfections. But Mat
thew and Mark wrote (each) a Gospel History
scripsit, nqn opus habuisset, ut eorum, quibus de doctrin^
Evangehi fuerat eruditus, veritatem seu certitudinem
agnosceret. Nam jam antea ex Evangeliis Matthaei et
Marci, si extitissent, agnovisset, Atqui opus habuisse,
(ex fine scripti ad ipsum k Luca, Evangelii, apparet : ac
propterea Matthaeus et Marcus non ante Lucam ; sed Lucas
ante eos Evangehum scripsit."— Gomari Operaj vol. J.
p. 301,

[ 9 1
without any imperfections ; therefore, they did
not write before Luke.  In the second
place; because, in the second verse, we have,
as they delivered them unto us : where the
Apostles are plainly distinguished from those
who, in the first verse, ai:e said to have taken in
hand to write a history. And as this delivering
must relate to preaching, and not to writing, —
which the fact itself and the common consent
of all men shows it did, — it clearly appears
from hence, that at that time no Gospels had
been written by Apostles ; whom, otherwise, to
distinguish them from the many who had pre
sumed to write (i. e. without due qualifications),
Luke would not have passed by unnoticed. —
Lastly, if Matthew and Mark had written
their Gospels before Luke, Theophilus, to whom
he wrote, would have stood in no need of any
further information, to establish his conviction
of the truth or certainty of those things,
wherein he had been instructed by the preach
ing (or oral teaching) of the Gospel ; for he
would have derived the fullest conviction from
the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, had they
then been in existence. But, that he (Theo
philus) did stand in such need, appears froin

[ 10 ]
the conclusion of Luke's Preface addressed (im
mediately) to him : and therefore, (I say,)
Matthew and Mark did not write before Luke ;
but Luke wrote his Gospel before them." 
Gomar, and the Gomarites were, then I con
clude, the " certain persons" alluded to by
Grotius. And to the arguments of Gomar I
find a later Commentator palpably, as I conceive,
referring ; and paying them and their Author
a tribute of respect, of no light kind from so
able and acute a judge.  Alexander Morus,
or More, well known in this country as having
drawn upon himself the severe chastisement of
Milton by publishing the Regii Sanguinis
Clamor of Du Moulin, printed at Paris, in
the year 1668, " Notes on some passages- of the
New Testament *." He was a man, whose
* "Alexandri Mori, ad quaedamloca Novi Fcederis Notae,''
Paris, 1668, It contains 279 pages in very small 12mo. —
In a short postscript, he intimates an intention of publisliing
something more, " in hoc genere, propediem, nisi quale-
cunque est hoc specimen parum placuisse inteHexerimus :"
and he adds, " Certum enim habemus, in Divinis hbris
jnfinita esse vel nondum penitus eruta, vel ita infeUciter
tractata, ut mehus propemodum fuerit latere," — " In
Divinis libris infinita esse vel nondum penitus eruta,"
may, -I conceive, still be said, — TanaquU Faber, iij a letter

[ 11 1
moral character appears to have been impeached
on grounds that could not be controverted ; but
his talents and learning have, I believe, never
been questioned. — In his introductory note on
the Gospel according to St. Matthew, he briefly
considers the question, " whether it was writ
ten the first of the four?" Its being placed
jirst, he intimates, is certainly no proof; ob
serving, that " Among the Epistles of St.
Paul, that to the Romans, which is placed
first, is universally acknowledged not to have
been the first written." He proceeds to say,
" Neither are there wanting persons, who con
sider Luke as the earliest writer ; and who have
been induced to adopt that opinion, by argu
ments which are by no means to be treated with
contempt. — It is no real objection to this opi
nion, that Luke, where he relates the same
things as Matthew and Mark, uses the same
words. For it may be replied, that they might
have adopted the words of Luke; Matthew
following Luke, and Mark Matthew.  In
deed, when I attentively consider that Intro-
to More, terms him, " Virum fortem et egregib indus-
trium.'- Tanaq. Fabri, Epist, LXYI. 1. I. ed. 1674,
p. 219.

[ 12 ]
duction, which opens the Gospel according ta
St. Luke, I find the greatest difficulty in per
suading myself, that he would have used such
a preface, or that he would have spoken of
those who had written before him with so little
fegard, if there had then existed a Greek Gos
pel, not of Mark only, but of Matthew also *."
* " Sed an primum scriptum inter quatuor ? Nam et
inter Epistolas Pauli, ea ad Romanes, quae primum obtinet
locum, primo omnium scripta non est, ut apud omnes
constat. Nec desunt, qui Lucam primo scripsisse arbi-
trentTir, non aspemandis rationibus adducti. Horum vero
sententiae nihU obstat, qupd Lucas, ubi res easdem, quas
Matthaeus et Marcus, commemorat, iisdem quibus ilh
verbis utitur.^ Dicent enim non minus facile fieri potuisse
ut illi verba sequerentur Lucae, vel ut Matthaeus seque-
retur Lucam, deinde Marcus Matthaeum. Equidem cum
attentius considero limen iUud Evangehi secundum Lucam,
vix est ut mihi persuadeam, eum tali usurum fuisse pro-
cemio, aut de iis quotquot ante se scripserant, locuturum
fuisse tam incuriosfe, si tum extitisset, quale nunc habe
mus Graecfe, non Marci modo, sed Matthaei Evangehum,"
Mori Not .as, &c, p. 11.
Looking however to the supposed uniform authority of
the Fathers, that " St. Matthew was the earhest vsriter of
a Gospel, and that he wrote in Hebrew," Morus admits
this to be probable ; but supposes that he vnrote his He
brew Gospel, as is said, within eight years of the Ascen
sion, and completed it in Greek, (i. e, as we now have

[ 13 ]
Le Clerc, in his Observations, on Augustine's
Four Books On the Consent of the Evan-
it,) under divine uispiration, some years after Luke had
\viitten his Gospel.  " Nemo (patrum) est, qui Mat
thaeum primo (Evangelium) scrijisisse inficietur. Quid
igitur, si quidem Hebraicfe scripsit Matthaeus ? Verisimile
admodum putem, principem quidem eum, sed Hebraic^,
scripsisse, anno, ut proditum est memoriae, post Domini
ascensionem in coelum octavo : at ejus Graecam interpre-
tationem Di^ini Spiritds instinctu perfectam esse aliquot
post demum annis quam Evangelium suum Lucas
conscripserat." — ^To this mode of solving the diificulty,
I have no objection whatev'er, under a certain qualifica
tion ; — ^namely, that the early Hebrew Gospel of St, Mat
thew, in point of matter, was not, by any means, " tale
quale nunc habemus Graecfe,"
That St. Matthew wrote his Gospel, precisely as we
now have it in point of matter, in the Hebrew language,
under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, — and that this
original, inspired Gospel is actually lost, — ^while
our Greek Gospel according to St. Matthew, which has
been presei-ved to us, is a mere translation, by ive know
not whom,  1 must say, "vix est ut mihi persuadeam."
In fact, I know not how to beheve it.  As the Cre
ator is the Preserver; surely the Inspieer of a Gospel,
for a never-ending purpose, woidd be, must be, its Pre
server also.  1 can well beheve, that St. Matthew wrote
an earl'y, short Hebrew Manual, of Gospel History and
Doctrines, for his countrymen only ; which Providence
did not intend to be aKTi!/*a ei? am, — as the necessary.

[ 14 1
delists, published under the name of Phere-"
ponus, observes, that " If Luke, (who from
the beginning of his Gospel appears to have
been acquainted with several memoirs of the
words and works of Christ,) had seen the work
pf Matthew, he would not have omitted to say,
that one of these memoirs was written by an
Apostle; that is, an eye-witness, as Matthew
was." See Lardner, vol. V. p. 95 ; where are
itiore observations, of the same writer, on these
points. — In his third Dissertation, On the
four Gospels, subjoined to his Harmony, he
also positively says, " I have no where seen it
proved, that Matthew wrote before Luke *."
 S. Basnage, of Flottemanville, (cousin of
I. Basnage the celebrated author of the Histo
ry of the Church, and also of the History
of the Jews,) " confidently affirms," says Ko-
preservation of it, in that form, was afterwards com
pletely superseded, by its being actually comprehended in
the much fuller, later-written, and inspired,
Greek Gospel, of the same St. Matthew.  This hy
pothesis would go near to solve all the difficulties between
the assertions of the Fathers on one hand, and the internal
evidence of St. Luke's Gospel on the other.
* '" Matthasum ante Lucam scripsisse nuspiam proba-
tiui^ vidi." Dissert, III. p. 544.

[ 15 ]
echei-, (Analect. Prolegom. ad Luc.,) " that
Luke was the earliest writer of all the Evange-
lists." — The arguments, with which Basnage
supports this opinion, appear to me well to dfe-
sei've our attention ; and I shall therefore give
a free translation of them, subjoining, in a
note below, the original Latin, from his An
nales POLITICO-ECCLESIASTICI, A. D. 60.
c. xxxi. *  ^  " Let us then exa-
* " IUud ergo veniat in disceptationem, uter Lucas, an
Matthaeus prior adhibuerit operam consignando scriptis
Evangelio ?  In eam lubentes propende-
mus opinionem, quod Lucas primam susceperit scribendi
provinciam. Atque ex praefatione ejus hanc facimus con-
jecturam : Quoniam multi aggressi sunt componere narra-
tionem rerum quarum plena fides nobis facta est, visum est
etiam mihi omnia a principio penitus assecuto, ordine ad te
scribere, prtBstant'issime Theophile, ut agnoscas certas esse
res quas auditione accepisti. Ex ek quidem praefatione
Uquet, nullum fuisse Theophilo scriptimi monumentum,
quo de servatoris historil. certfe certbque doceretur. Non
dicit res quas lectione, sed quas auditione accepisti : neque
ut certum sciret Theophilus, EvangeUo Lucae opus ipsi
fuisset, cum ex scriptis Matthaei certa veri notitia infor-
mari potuisset, quod anno Christi xxxix. exaratum est, si
Baronio credimus. Eo labente spatio quod inter Evangelii
utriusque scriptionem fuit inteijectum, Matthaei codex
pervenisset in manus TheophUi, viri et nobilitate, et pie-

C 16 1
mine the question, whether Luke, or Mat
thew, first engaged in committing the Gos-
tate undequaque clarissimi. Quis facilios tantum sibi
comparare thesaurum potuit? Ignoravitne Theophilus,
Evangelium fuisse k Matthaeo conditum ? jQuod si novit,
omnem utique movit lapidem, ut ipsius habendi facultas
sibi concederetur. — 2o. Si jam pubhcum Ecclesieeque
probfe notum Matthaei Evangehum fuit, cum ad scriben-
dum Lucas impulsus est, sitne vero simile Matthaeum ex
eorum numero non exemptum h Luca fuisse, qui satis infe-
hciter operam dederant exarandae Servatoris historiae ?
Quos sane k Luca obscurfe perstringi, non est ambiguum.
Secus ex eorum monumentis ad certam rerum notitiam
pervenire potuisset Theophilus, quam cum sibi ex eorum
lectione librorum comparare non valuerit, ahud ipsi Lucas
praebuit suis ex lucubrationibus aiudhum. Cerinthum in-
dicari atque Merinthum, ab hisce multis, qui conati sunt
Evarigehcae narrationis seriem contexere, placuit Epi-
phanio. Imprudenter tamen, cum nulla vigerent adhuc
scripta Cerinthi. Rectius Ailgustinus eos innui existimat,
qui susceptam scribendi provinciam non satis exom^rant.
At cum multos Lucas obliqufe tangat Evangelii Scriptores,
qui, populari afflati rumore, quae non explorata satis di-
vulg&.rant, in animum inducere nostrum ^ix quimus,
quod de imperiti h&c multitudineunus non exceptus fuisset
Matthaeus, aut praeconii aUquid ejus historiae contributum
non esset, si jam extitisset.  3°. Si Lucas ante Mat
thaeum scripsit, facihs utique ratio reddi potest, quam-
obrem Matthaeus, in recensenda. Cliristi genealogi^, Ulam
Josepjii texuerit, qui ex sanguine quidem Davidis creatus

[ 17 J
pel to writing?  ^  Readily shall
we incline to the opinion, that Luke first un
dertook the office of a Writer. And this con-
est; sed vario tarten 'k Christi Mariffique proavis stem-
mate, ut magna jam esset inter utramque Uneatn distantia.
Josephus enim ex Salomone, Virgo, Chifiti mater, ex
Nathane ortum ducebat suum. Hoccine dignum Scrip-
tore, cui aUquid ingenii inest atque sapentiae, ut verft
omiss^ genealogia, apparentem solam subjiciat? Quod
dubio procul, sit honos auribus, insulsum videtur, si pri
mum Ji Matthaeo editum est Evangehum. At bene
coctum et sapientid. conditum est Matthaei consUiimi, si
ipsius historia iUam Lucae exceperit. Lucas enim incepit
k vero Christi stemmate, h. quo ducendum sane fuit ini-
tium : apparentem vero genealogiam addidit Matthaeus,
quia pro fiUo Josephi Christus habebatur, ut ex utroque.^
stemmate Christus Davidis FUius agnosceretur. — — •
4°. Cum Matthaeo magna fuerit prudentia, incredibUe
est omnino, si primum vulgavit Evangelium, quod ab
eo non inceperit, k quo ^iendum initium fuit ; videUcet,
et k missione Gabrielis Angeli ad EUzabetham atque
Maiiam, et ab edicto Augusti, quo impulsa Virgo, utut
gerens uterum, advenit in urbem Bethlehemiticam, ubi
peperit. Hoc EvangeUcae historiae caput esse, docmnento
sunt Concordantiae omnes, quae ab h4c materia sumvmt
initium. Quod Matthaeo, decentiae ordinisque custodi,
neutiquam neglectui fuisset. Ea porro praetermisit, utpote
fusfe jam k Luca tradita. lUa demvun supplevit, quae
omissa fuerant, ac illustrandae Servatoris natiyitati neces -
saria videbantur." Tom, I. p. 712.
c

[ 18 ]
elusion we draw from his Preface: ' Foras
much as many have taken in hand to set forth
in order a declaration of those things which
are ¦most surely believed amongst us, even as
they delivered them unto us which from the be
ginning tvere eye-witnesses and ministers of
the word : it seemed good to me also, having
had perfoct understanding of all things from
the very first, to write unto thee in order, most
excellent Theophilus : that thou mightest hwio
the certainty of those things wherein thou
hast been instructed,^  (xn-fpi m xairnp(ri9-/i;)
quas auditione accepisti, i. e. wherein thou hast
been orally instructed.  It is, indeed, clear
from this preface, that there then existed no
written record, from which Theophilus might
have received sure and certain information, re
specting the history ofthe Saviour. He (Luke)
does not say, the things ' wherein by reading
thou hast instructed thyself,' but ' wherein
BY hearing (the oral information of others)
thou hast been instructed:' nor, that Theo
philus might know the certainty of those things,
had he any occasion whatever for Luke's Gos
pel, if he could then have had recourse, for the
fullest and most satisfactory information, to the

[ 19 ]
Gospel of Matthew ; which Baronius supposes
to have been written A. D. 39. In the space
of time which intervened between the writing
of their two respective Gospels, Matthew's ma
nuscript must have come into the hands of a
man so illustrious, for his high rank and emi
nent piety, as Theophilus. How easily could
he have procured this valuable treasure ! How
impossible was it, that he should be ignorant
of Matthew's having composed a Gospel ! And,
if he knew it, he would surely have left no
stone unturned, to obtain possession of it.
 2dly. — If Matthew's Gospel was pub
lished and well known to the Church, at the
time when Luke was induced to write, is it
likely that Matthew would not have been ex
cepted by Luke from the number of those who
had applied themselves, so unsuccessftilly, to
the writing a history of the Saviour ? And that
Luke obscurely glanced at them (as writing un
successfully), there is no doubt. — Otherwise,
Theophilus might have derived, from the writ
ten records of these persons, that certain know
ledge of (the Gospel) facts ; which, as he could
not acquire it satisfectorily fi-om their writings,
Luke, from his own labours, furnished him-with.
c 2

L 20 j
""-It was the conjecture of Epiphanius, that Ce-
rinthus and Merinthus were indicated by the many
who had attempted to draw up a regular account of
the Gospel history ; but there is no ground for it,
because at that time no writings of Cerinthus
were in circulation. Augustine more justly
thinks, that the allusion is to those persons,
who, having undertaken the office of writing,
had failed in the execution of it. Be that as it
may ; since Luke obliquely glances at many,
who, deriving all their information from mere
popular rumour, published accounts of what
they were not fully acquainted with, — we cannot
possibly bring ourselves to believe, that Mat
thew would not have been excepted from this
incompetent multitude, or that some tribute of
respect would not have been paid to his Gos
pel, if at that time it had really existed. 
gdly. If Luke wrote before Matthew, surely
an obvious reason may be assigned, why
Matthew, in his account of the Genealogy of
Christ, has drawn out that of Joseph: who
indeed sprang from the blood of David, but
still by a different branch from the ancestors of
Christ and Mary, so that there was a great dis
tance between each respective line. For Jo-

[ 21 ]
seph descended from Solomon, while the Vir
gin, the Mother of Christ, traced her descent
from Nathan. Is this becoming a vn-iter of the
least understanding and discrimination ; to pass
by the real line of actual descent, and to exhibit
only the apparent one? Which, doubtless,
I beg to say, seems the very height of stupi
dity; supposing Matthew's Gospel to have
been the first published. But the plan of
Matthew is perfectly wise and judicious ; if his
own history followed that of Luke. For Luke,
the first writer, had given the real Genealogy of
Christ, according as his descent ought to be
traced ; and Matthew added his apparent Gene
alogy, because Christ was considered as the son
of Joseph; so that Christ, through whichever
line his descent might be traced, should be ac
knowledged to be the son of David.  • — • 
4thly. As Matthew was a man o{f great judg
ment, it is altogether incredible, if he published
the first Gospel, that he should riot have begun,
from what seems the proper beginning ; that is,
from the Angel Gabriel's being sent to Elizabeth
and Mary, and from the decree of Augustus,
in consequence of which the Virgin, although
great with child, went up to the city of Beth^

C 22 ]
lehem, where she brought forth her son.  —
That this is the requisite beginning of the Gos
pel History, we may learn from all the Har
monies ; which begin with the accounts of
iiiese facts ; which also Matthew, observant,
as he wasi of order and propriety, would by no
means have neglected to do. These things,
however, he passed by, as having been already
fully related by Luke : and, lastly, he supplied
whatever things, (omitted by Luke,) still ap
peared necessary to illustrate the birth of the
Saviour."  ——Jeremiah Jones, the accurate
Investigator of the Canonical Authority of
the New Testament, has not immediately
considered the question of priority between St.
Matthew and St. Luke. Something however,
relative to it, may be noticed in his writings.
Having observed, that " the time or period
when St. Luke's Gospel was written, is very
uncertain ; there being not, (as far as he knows,)
any monument of antiquity, by which it can be
fixed or determined ; he proceeds to say, " The
antients generally place the writing of this Gos
pel after those of St. Matthew and St. Mark."
Vol. III. p. 92. And he had before said, " That
St, Matthew's was the first true Gospel that was

[ 23 ]
written, is generally asserted by all the antients."
Ibid. p. 50. On the authoritj' of the antient
Fathers, at the same time, he places veiy little
reliance; for, while he acknowledges their
" general testimony, that St. Matthew wrote in
Hebrew, which," he adds, " great numbers of
learned men have thought of itself sufficient,
although it is the only considerable proof of it,"
he has no hesitation whatever, in resisting the
testimony of the Fathers on this head *. He
observes also, " It is certain, a great many of
the Fathers have fallen (one after another) into
the same mistake ; not only in matters of mere
speculation, (which was veiy common,) but
also in matters of fact." Upon the whole, he
claims authority for their testimony, only where
" no probable reason can be assigned, why they
should fall into any mistake." Vol. III. Vind.
p, 138.  ^The learned Bengel, in
his Gnomon N. Testamenti, Luke i. 1., ob-
* Vindication of the former part of St, Matthew's
Gospel, c, xix,  In the two preceding chapters, he
had, indeed, accounted for the mistake of the Fathers,
which he imputes to them, in this point. — A misappre
hension, by them, of the true order of tlae Gospels, may,
I conceive, be full as well accounted for and explained.

C 24 3
serves, that " Luke takes no notice of Matthew
and John, who had been among the actual
eye witnesses and ministers of the word ; so
that we must say, Luke wrote before John, and
seems not to have seen Matthew's book *." 
Bengel here certainly considers St. Matthew
as the earliest writer of a Gospel ; but it seems
to me, that he formed this opinion on very
slight grounds. I judge by what he says, in his
Introduction to St. Matthew's Gospel : *' Mat
thew, an apostle, was the first writer of a Gos
pel ; which that he was, plainly appears, even
from this circumstance, that the title of Go
vernor, which is only once used by Luke (c. iii.
1.), and never by the others, is constantly attri
buted to Pilate by Matthew in his history ofthe
Passion -|-." Were this really so ; this argument,
* ¦¦' Non notat Lucas Matthaeum et Johannem, qui
fuerant inter spectatores rei et ministros ipsos; ut noil
dicamus, Lucam et ante Johannem scripsisse, et Mat
thaei hbrum non vidisse videri." Gnomon, tom, I, p. 247,
ed, 1773.
"t- " Matthaeus, apostolus, primb scripsit ; [quod vel ex
eo patet, quod iye^ovo; titulus, a Luca semel (c, iii, 1.), a
reliquis nunquam expressus, in historia passionis a Mat-
thao constanter tribuitur Pilato.y Gnomon, p, 1, The
argument, in Italics, was taken from his Harmony,

[ 25 ]
standing singly, would little serve the cause it is
adduced to support.  Koecher in
and inserted in tliis place, by the editor of the posthu
mous edition : — but I aun not aware, that Bengel has ad
duced in his Gnomon any better argument, or indeed any
other sffgument, for the prography of St. Matthew.
The argument just referred to, is repeated by Dr. Tovrason,
as one of those, (and one on which he lays some stress,)
that serve to prove that " St. Matthew wrote early." 
" As soon," says he, " as he (Matthew) begins to relate, c.
xxvii. that our Lord was led prisoner from the Jewish
council to the preetorium, he begins to speak of Pilate as
Govemor. The Govemor asked, the Govemor answered;
and so on. Why this frequent mention of Govemor, for it'
occurs nine times, but because it belonged to Pilate as still
Govemor of Judea, whUe St. Matthew Was vwiting ?"-^Dr.
Townson, it appears, did not rest entirely on the authority
of Bengel] but, looking to his Concordances, ascertained the
" nirte" repetitions of the word iya/i&it, in the xxviith chap.
of St. Matlhew. He appears, however, to have looked no
frirther. I wish he had observed, how often the Go
vemor, where he might equally well have been so de
nominated, is distinguished by his own name Pilate.
— It is indeed said ver, 11, the Governor asked; ver.
21, the Governor answered; ver. 28. the Govebnok
said. But it is also said ver. 13, then saith Pilate;
ver. 17- Pilate said unto them ; ver. 22, Pilate saith unto
them. It is true the word Governor is nine times used in
the Chapter. In the first instance however it is joined vrith
bis proper name, ver. 2. and delivered him to Pontius

[ 25 ]
his Analecta, (a highly valuable Continuation
ofthe CuRiE Philologic^ et Critics of Wol-
fius,) notices four German writers, whom he
joins with Basnage as confidently affirming,
that " Luke was the earliest writer of all the
Evangelists." — ^These were Eb''. Dav'*. Haiiber,
in his Harmonising Observations on the
FOUR Evangelists *, published in 1737; Jo.
Pilate the Governor ; thus specifying that the Govemor,
at that time, was Pontius Pilate. — Of the eight other
times, in which the word Governor is used, in two of them,
ver. 15. and ver. 27-, the vcord Govemor seems to be used
officially, and does not pereonally relate to Pilate. — But
putting this out of the question, the proper name Pilate
occurs exactly as often in this Chapter, as his official de
scription of Governor; being exactly nine times, — The
fact is, the personal and official names are first joined toge
ther, and then apphed alternately to varj- the constant re
petition of the identical denomination of so principal
a person and so frequent a speaker in tliis great scene.
The " constanter tribuitur" of Bengel is, clearl}', an egre
gious blunder. And tlie argument of Dr. Townson lias,
it seems to me, httle, or no ground to rest upon.
* " Hannonische Anmerckungen zu der aus den vier
Evangehsten zusammen gefugten Lebensbeschreibmig
Jesu Christi." Lemgo. 1737.  He had before pub
lished, " Gedancken und Anmerckungen uber die Ord-
nimg der ersten und letzsten Lebensgescliite Jesu
Cliristi." Lemgo. I'lZ'i.  Saxius takes no notice of
ilauber.

[ 27 ]
Ernst Emanuel Walch, in his Introduction
TO THE Harmony of the Evangelists * ; John
Christopher Harenberg, in the Theological
Magazine, vol. I. part I. p. 206 -f- ; and Vo-
gelius, in the Bibliotheca Bremensis, Vol.
IV. p. 642 X--' — ' —  Dr- Lardner
is clear and decided in his opinion, that St.
Matthew's Gospel " was not written and pub
lished, so as to be known to Luke, or The
ophilus, at the time when Luke wrote hi?
Gospel." - — r- " The beginning of St. Luke's
Gospel," he says, " affords an argument, that
the other two Gospels of Matthew and Mark
were not written sooner ; for this Evangelist
* " Einleitung in die Harmonie der EvangeUsteri."
Jenae 1749.  Saxius says of him ; " Studiis laudabi-
hbus, de Omni hterarum scienti&, commodfe meruit."
f Theolo^sches Magazin." Gotha, 1761, 3 vok.
——Harenberg published in this Magazine a series of
observations on the ten first chapters of St. hake. See
Koecher, p, 661.  One of his piincipal works appears
to have been Otia Gandershemensia Sacra, Traject.
al Rhen. 1740.  He is described, by Saxius, " Theo-
logus, Historicus, et Philologus, — claras Otiis Gander-
shemensibus Sacris, exponendis sacris hteris et historiae
E)cclesiasticis dicatis." ¦
t Published at Bremen, 1760.  1 know not where to
go, for any information respecting VogeUus.
c6

[ 28 ,]
knew nothing of them. Consequently they
were not then written, and published ; or but
lately.  Every word of his Preface shows
this.  When Luke says, that many had
taken in hand to write histories of our Saviour,
he cannot mean Matthew alone ; nor Matthew
and Mark only ; — ior they are not many.
He must intend (either) them and others, or
some different from them ; which last will ap
pear most likely, if we consider what follows.
 Of those many, he says, they had taken
in hand, (i. e.) undertaken, or attempted. St.
Luke would not have spoken thus of Matthew,
or Mark. Indeed, we may suppose that the
narrations, to which St. Luke refers, were not
false and fabulous ; nor heretical : but they
were defective, The antient Christians thus
understood him."— ^  Having cited Ori
gen, Ambrose, Eusebius, and Epiphanius,
from among the antients, and Beausobre and
Dodwell, from among the moderns, in
proof of this, he proqeecls to say, " This may
be sufficient to satisfy us, that St. Luke does
not speak of any of our Evangelists.  But
we may have yet further assurance of it, by
observing what he says of himself, and his own

[ 29 ]
design ; — ' That it seemed good to him to send
unto Theophilus in writing a distinct and par
ticular history of Jesus Christ ; that he might
better know, and be more fully confirmed in the
truth of those things, in which he had been in
structed by word of mouth.'  In my opinion,
this implies a supposition, that Theophilus had
not yet in his hands any good written history of
the words and works of Jesus Christ." Lardner's
Works, vol. VI. p. 40, 43 *• — I must not omit
to observe, that in his Plan of the Times and
Places of writing the four Gospels, prefixed
to the same Volume, Dr. Lardner has stated
* P, 79, &c. of the first volume of the Supplement
to the Second Part of the Credibility of the Gospel
History, This, - together with a second volume, was
published in the course of the year 1756 ; the year in which
Macknight's Harmony first appeared ; which, we may
therefore conclude, Lardner had not seen, when the
arguments above cited were vmtten. He seems to have
paid no great attention to the first edition of the Har
mony; as he coldly notices it in his Letter to Jonas Har-
way. But in citing the second edition, of 1763 (vol, VIII.
of his works, pp, 226, 227) notes), he commends the
learning auid industry of the Author, — It excited Lard-
aer to examine minutely that part of the Harmony re-
lating_to the Resurrection, And accordingly he pubhshed
his Letter to Dr. Macknight in 1764,

[ 30 ]
Matthew and Mark to have written " about the
year 64," and Luke to have written " about the
year 6s or 64 :" — ^giving a certain balance of his
opinion for the priority of St, Luke.  The
learned Dr. Busching *, in his Preface, to his
German Harmony of the Evangelists, pub
lished at Hamburgh, in 1766, affirms, that
" St. Luke wrote before St. Matthew."  ^The
common opinion that "Matthew was the earliest
writer of a Gospel," was fully adopted by Mi
chaelis in the first Edition of his Introduction

* Saxius, after noticing the two first publications of
Antony Frederic Busching in 1746, proceeds to say of
him : " Postea tot majoribus minoribusve hbris, ut plu-
rimum theotisce scriptis, tot in se oculos et studia legen-
tium convertit, quot vix quisquam ilUs temporibus popu-
larium ahus,"  ^I have not been able to see Dr,
Busching's Harmony, or to learn on what ground he
supports the hypothesis of the prography of St, Luke, I-
might have supposed, from the time of his writing, that
he had seen the second edition of Dr, Macknight's Har
mony, and had adopted it from his preliminary Obsei-va-
tions. But it appears, from Mr, Mai'sh's Origin of the
THREE first Gospels, p. 174, that he considered Matthew
as copying from St. Luke; and, I presume, he rested his
argument thereon.

[ 31 ]
to the New Testament, published in 175O;
but in the second Edition, published in I765,
having begun to waver in this opinion, he thus
commences his account of St. Matthew's Gospel;
" St. Matthew is said to have written his Gos
pel before the other Evangelists :" — on which
passage, in the subsequent Editions, he has the
following Note ; " I purposely let this sentence
remain doubtful, as I wrote it in the second
edition of this Introduction, at a time when the
assertion, that St. Matthew really composed
his Gospel before the other three Evangelists,
which I made in the first edition, began to ap
pear to me uncertain. Soon after the second
edition appeared. Dr. Busching pubhshed his
Harmony of the four Gospels, in which he as
serted, that St. Luke wrote before St. Matthew:
and, not observing that I had already begun to
waver in my former opinion, requested me to
favour him with my sentiments in regard to
his own. To this I answer, tjjat I am so far of
his opinion at present, as to believe, that when
St. Luke wrote his Gospel, he knew nothing of a
Gospel written by St. Matthew ; at least not of a
Greek Gospel.  But as I believe that
St. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, I am

[ 34 ]
not certain that the original was not in existence
when St. Luke wrote his Gospel : I will only
affirm that the Translation had not then beeti
made. That St. Mark wrote later than St. Luke
I have no doubt." — Marsh's Michaelis, vol.
iii. p. 96. — In speaking of St. Luke's Gospel,
and of " the time when he wrote" it, he likewise
says, " St. Luke's Gospel, for aught we know,
may have been written many years before the
Acts of the Apostles, and consequently the opi
nion, that it was written before St. Paul w£«
sent prisoner from Caesarea to Rome, may very
possibly be true. Nay, it is possible that St.
Luke wrote before St. Matthew ; for, though I
would not undertake to prove that he did, I
should find it difficult to prove that he did not.
It is true, that, according to the common ar
rangement of the four Gospels, St. Luke's is
placed after that of St. Matthew : but we can
not argue from their position to the time in
which they were written.  It is not impro
bable that the co/n/rao?z arrangement of the three
first Gospels was grounded, not on the time
when they were written, but on the different
degrees of dignity of their respective authorsi.
St Maljthew had the first rank ; because he was

[ 33 ]
an Apostle.  The only Gospel, of which
we can positively affirm that its usual position
corresponds to the time of its composition, is
that of St. John : but, as in several manuscripts
this Gospel has a different position, we see that
the arrangement of the Gospels leads to no con
clusion." — Ibid. p. 243. 244. — He proceeds
to say " 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." p. 246. And, having argued this
from the internal Evidence of several circum
stances in St. Luke's Gospel, he draws this
conclusion, " 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." p. 247.  Such was
the opinion of the learned and investigating
Michaelis ; and in this his acute and able
Commentator, Mr. Marsh, fully agrees with
him. Indeed he intimates much adherent
doubt, respecting the priority of St. Matthew's
writing: " If," says he, "St. Luke Avrote his
Gospel before he quitted Palestine to accompany
St. Paul to Rome *, he wrote before St. Mat-
* The argument of Mr. Marsh here proceeds on his d&-
D

[ 34 ]
thew ; and if he wrote his Gospel after he had
left Palestine, St. Matthew's Gospel, even if
written before that of St. Luke, would have
cided opinion, that what Irenaeus says, of St. Matthew
"writing his Gospel, is an intended " testimony of the time"
when it was written, — In this he follows the learned
author whom he has translated, and on whose vcork he
has so ably commented : — the only question, in his opi
nion, being, whether it relates to St. Paul's first residence
at Rome, when St. Luke was vfith him ; or to a second
residence at a later period. — To this idea, of Irenaeus
writing synchronically, 1 find Mr, Marsh repeatedly re
curring, as to a clear unquestionable matter of feet, — -I have,
however, ventured to dissent from this opinion, (Disc, Cons.
on thesupposedEvidence," &c.p.3. — 11.,) notmerely on ar
guments which occurred to myself, but which I found to be
sanctioned by the authority of Atterbury, Wall, and Town-
son, I omitted to notice, that the Bishop of Lincoln
considers the passage " so obscure, that no conclusion
can be dravmfrom it," El, Theol, vol, I, p, 296, — And
I was not then aware, that I might refer to another high
authority, for the sense which I would attach to this pas
sage of Irenaeus. — I find it thus translated and punctuated
by our gi-eat Chillingworth : " Matthew to the Hebrews in
their tongue pubhshed the Scripture of the Gospel : When
Peter and Paul did preach the Gospel and foimd the
Church, or a Church at Rome, or of Rome, and after
their departure, Mark, the Scholar of Peter, dehvered to
us in writing those things which had been preached by
Peter; and Lvike, the follower of Paul, compiled in a
Book the Gospel which was preached by him r and after-

[ 35 ]
remained, if not wholly unknown to him,
at least unseen by him; since transcripts
of written books were not sent from one
quarter of the globe to another with that
rapidity, with which we now distribute copies
of printed books." Vol. iii. c. iv. sect. i. note,
25. Again, " If St. Matthew's Gospel (on
the supposition that it was written before St.
Luke's Gospel) remained unknown to St. Luke
for no other reason, than because it was
written in Hebrew, St. Luke must have been
unacquainted with that language. But it ig
impossible to read a page of St. Luke's Gos-*
pel, without perceiving his intimate acquaint^
ance Avith the Hebrew turns of expression."
Sect. ii. note, 5.  And, in his very inge
nious* Dissertation On the Origin of the
three FIRST Gospels, he explicitly says, "That
our three first Gospels were really written in
wards John," &c. &c. ChiUingworthj p. 153. fol. ed. 1727.
—To this punctuation, I confess, I do not incline to
accede. It serves, however, to show, that Chillingworth
considered Irenaeus, as indicating how, or upon what au
thority, all the Gospels were written, and certainly not
when, or at what precise time, any of them actuaUy were
written, * Such it certainly is, and must be considered even by
P 2

[ 36 ]
the order in which they are placed in our Ca
non, is a matter which it is impossible to prove
from historical evidence: for ecclesiastical
writers themselves are at variance on this sub
ject, and it is evident that even they, who
lived in the second and third centuries, had no
certain knowledge, in respect to the order in
which the Gospels were written.  Later
Critics, knowing on what precarious ground
the opinion rests, that the three first Gospels
were written in the same order in which they
are placed in our Canon, have ventured to de
sert it." Ghap. ii. — And in a note on the
vith. section of his xvth. chap, he says, " That
even St. Matthew's Hebrew Gospel 'Was
written after that of St. Luke, is neither im
possible, nor improbable." 
I have here discursorily noticed sixteen learned
writers, some of them eminently distinguished,
— of whom the majority positively contend, or
strongly incline to believe, that St. Luke was
certainly the First Writer of a Gospel : while
the remainder of them, leaving the question
those, to whom his Hypothesis does not appear so " sim
ple," or satisfactory, or, indeed, so indispensably necessary,
as the learned anthor seems to think it.

[ 37 ]
doubtful, as difficult to be satisfactorily solved,
agree that St, -Luke, when he wrote, knew
nothing of any preceding Gospel ; and further
think, that the common arrangement of the
Gospels in our Canon, and the authority of some
ofthe early Fathers, who vouch it as the real or
der jn which they were written, are no valid Proofs
of Matthew's having been the earliest writer of
a Gospel.  I have reserved the Hypothesis
of Macknight, as being my avowed object,
for seperate consideration ; whereas, chronolo
gically, he should have been noticed imme
diately after Lardner.
Dr. Macknight published the first Edition of
his Harmony of the four Gospels, in 1756.
He was then only Master of Arts ; a young,
and I believe little known, Scotch Divine. —
To his Harmony he prefixed Preliminary
Observations ; in the vith. of which he treats
Of the Order in which the Gospels were
written, and exhibits, more largely and dis
tinctly than any other previous or subsequent
writer "has done, the arguments, in detail, for
the Hypothesis of St. Luke's being the earliest
Evangelist, or first publisher of a written Gos
pel. This detail is given there so fully, an<l

[ 38 ]
clearly, that in the ftcond edition, eight years
after, nothing very material is added to it ; and
I believe little or nothing is corrected. Al
though, in considering the point, he has in se
veral parts adopted the arguments of previous
writers of high authority, in giving his Hypo
thesis to the public, he has not noticed this ;
but has left the arguments to rest solely oix
their own validity. — I can fancy that his
ideas were, therefore, considered by many per
sons as perfectly novel ; and that, as such,
they excited at first a certain degree of censure.
— I suppose this, because I find him, in his se
cond edition, smoothing the way for his Hypo
thesis by prefixing to it an additional Prelimi
nary Observation, which treats Of the re-
card THAT is due to OPINIONS DERIVED
merely from tradition. I cite such parts
of it, as seem more immediately applicable to
the point in question. — " Opinions rendered
venerable by antiquity, and stamped with
the authority of popular belief, should never
be so reverenced by those who search after
truth, as to make them reject opinions of a
later date,' which are stamped with the stronger
and better authority of evidence." — " Our vene-

[ 39 3
ration for traditions," "will be very much les
sened, when we consider that the Fathers, in
whose writings they are found, notwithstanding
they lived in the earliest ages, fell many of
them into gross errors, even with respect to
such matters of fact as they might easily have
known, if they had been at the pains to search
the Scriptures."  Having adduced several
examples of this from some of the early Fathers,
he further observes ; " Other examples, of the
inaccuracy and unskilfulness of the Fathers in
matters of fact, might be given : but those
which I have mentioned are sufficient tp ^how,
that many of the traditiojip, handed down as
Apostolical, are not to be implicitly received by
those who wish to arrive at the possessiori of
truth.  r—  At first the faith of Chris
tians was founded on t]iemany miracles, whereby
the Gospel was so powerfully established every
where, in opposition to the combined efforts of
both Jews and Gentiles. Hence it came, that
the objections raised against it were generfiUy
levelled against those miracles. This w{is the
reason that the first Christians neither enquired
so narrowly into the internal evidences of the
jpospels, nor so solicitously avoided those in-

[ 40 1
terpretations of Scripture, and those opinions
about facts, which exposed them to censure,
as we find ourselves obliged to do, who cannot
appeal to present or even to recent wonders for
the support of our religion, and are attacked
by our adversaries on every quarter where they
expect to make an impression. Moreover,
though the ancients had been disposed to search
the Scriptures with care, considering the dis
advantages they laboured under, they could not
have been very successful in their first attempts.
For, the inspired books having been written at
different times, in different places, and by dif
ferent authors, for the use of particular churches,
it was long before they came to be universally
known; especially in an age that could not
boast of the art of printing, by which books
are now so quickly and widely dispersed. In
such circumstances, we may believe the
whole of the sacred books would not be uni
versally in the possession of particular Chris
tians in the first ages ; consequently, wanting
the light which arises from comparing Scripture
with Scripture, they must often have been at a
loss in interpreting such of the sacred
books as they were possessed of. No wonder.

[ 41 j
therefore, that every thing they thought they
saw in the sacred books was taken for truth,
without examining further into the matter.
And, as great regard was paid, even in those
early times, to the opinion of those who had
gone before, and had conversed either with the
apostles, or with those who had seen the apos
tles, the mistakes of the ancients passed from
one to another, without ever being called in
question. We need not be surprised, therefore,
to find things handed down from age to age
with great reverence as indubitable, which on
examination turned out no better than mistakes.
Neither need we scruple to receive the truth,
though it should happen to contradict notions,
which perhaps were never so much as once
called in question.  The
particular conclusion I would draw from this
observation is, that it can be no solid objec
tion against any opinion relative to the Har
mony of the Gospels, or against any interpre
tation of Scripture offered in the following
work, that Christians have generally thought
otherwise; provided always, that the reasons
offered in support of such opinions be found
sufficient to establish them. This should by

[ 42 ]
no means preclude a more narrow enquiry.
Neither should it make us reject the truth, if in
the course of such researches, whether made by
Papists or Protestants, friends or foes, it hap
pens to be revived again, after having been bu
ried in the grave of ignorance perhaps for ages
together."  1 now proceed
to lay before the reader the Hypothesis it
self, as it follows in the viith. Preliminary Ob
servation ; the first chapter of which treats
Of the Order in which the Gospels
WERE PUBLISHED. The two first sections of
this chapter I give entire ; although they reca
pitulate several arguments before adduced,
in the preceding pages, from other writers * ;
and although they contain others, which do
not appear to me to have any material weight. —
I judge it right, however, to exhibit the whole
accumulated argument ; as it is given in the last
* In the life of Dr. Macknight, prefixed to the Svo
posthumous edition of his Harmony, we are told that,
" Having completed tlie usual course of academical disci
pline at Glasgow, hewent t©>Leyden, in order to prosecute
the study of Theolc^", — And that, "while he stayed in
HoUand, he had an opportunity of procuring many valu
able books written by foreign Divines ; which afterwards
assisted his own labours in explaining Scripture." —

[ 43 ]
edition published by Dr. Macknight himself,
in 1763. *  « 1 . It is generally sup
posed that Matthew and Mark published their
Gospels before Luke wrote his. Yet the preface^
which the latter hath prefixed to his work, serves
to prove that his was published the first ofthe four.
i. 1 . Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to
set forth in order a declaration of those things
which are most surely believed among us, 2.
Even a,sthey delivered them unto us, whichfrom
tlie beginning ivere eye-witnesses, and ministers
I am tempted to conjecture, that Gomar and S, Basnage
were two of the authors, whose works our Harmonist
brought home vrith him : I have no doubt, that the latter,
at least, contributed to the forming of his Hypothesis, — We
learn, from his life, that he had formed the plan of his first
work, his Harmony, " so early as in the third or fourth year
of his attendance at the University.''
*" He was now Doctor of Divinity ;" which degi-ee, " it is no
ticed inhisLife, " the University of Edinburgh conferred up-
' on him, (among the first who obtained that distinction in
Scotland,) as having by his pubhcations obtained a high
reputation for Theological learning."  This was, it
fhould seem, very much increased by the second edi
tion of his Harmony, and the pubUcation of another
work, of great merit, on The Truth of the Gospel His
tory. In the year 1769, he was chosen Moderator
-of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland,

[ 44 ]
of the word : 3 . It seemed g ood to me also,
having had perfect understanding of all things
from the very first, to ivrite unto thee in order,
most excellent Theophilus. At first sight, in
deed, one may be apt to tliin'i-: that Luke speaks
here of the other Gospels, and their authors.
Yet the character which he gives of the writers,
whom he had inview, makes it evident that they
were historians of a different kind from the
Evangelists, properly so called. For they wrote
according to the information they had received
from the eye-witnesses and ministers of tlie
word ; whereas the Evangelists, being eye-wit
nesses themselves, wrote from their own per
sonal knowledge improved by inspiration. At
least Matthew and John were writers of this
character. And as for Mark, though he was
not an apostle, he may have been an early dis
ciple, and consequently an eye-witness of the
greatest part of the things he has told. Ac
cordingly Epiphanius affirms that he was one
of the seventy, Haeres. 51. n, 6. 
 To set the matter in another

light; if we interpret Luke's preface of the
Evangelists, we must allow that he had none
but Matthew and Mark in view ; since, by the

[ 45 J
ucknowledgment of all, John did not write
his Gospel till long after Luke's was published.
But that he should call two historians (-aroXXs;)
many, is really very hard to be conceived. —
Further, ifthe gospels ofMatthewandMarkwere
abroad when Luke was writing, we may be sure
that he would peruse them ; and, as he speaks of
persons who had composed histories of Christ's
life, he could not by any means overlook au
thors of their character. On this supposition,
can it be imagined, that, while his own Gospel
was penned under the direction of the Spirit,
according to the information he had received
from those who were eye-witnesses, he would
only say of an eye-witness and apostle, on whom
the Spirit had descended, or even of an apostle's
companion, that they had taken in hand to give
the history of Christ's life ; and not rather have
mentioned both them and their works with par
ticular approbation ? Without all doubt, had he
been speaking of them, he would not have
passed them over in such a slight and genei'al
manner.  ^ 2. From Luke's
preface, therefore, it may fairly be inferred,
that he published his Gospel before either
Matthew or Mark wrote theirs. The pro-

L 46 ]
bability of this opinion is heightened by the
following consideration. It makes the Gospels
appear with a noble and beautiful propriety.
For, on tlie supposition that Luke wrote before
the rest, we can see the reason why they have
passed over in silence the many miraculous
circumstances, with which the conception,
birth and circumcision, both of the Messiah's
forerunner, and of the Messiah himself, were
honoured * ; together with the prophecies of
Simeon and Anna, uttered at our Lord's pre
sentation in the temple ; as also the history of
his childhood and private life. Luke had
accurately and at a great length related all
these things ; without omitting any particular
that deserved to be mentioned. On the other
hand, if we think Matthew and Mark wrote
before Luke, their Gospels will appear defective
m those important points ; and no reason will
ofier itself to justify such material omissions. —
Our Lord's genealogy by his mother, of whom
alone, properly speaking, he sprang, being
given by Luke, it remained only for Matthew
to record the genealogy of Joseph, who was
* What follows to " chUdhood and private life," 1, 13.
inclosive, was added in the second edition.

i: 47 ]
supposed to be his father, for the satisfaction
of those who thought he was Joseph's son, or
reckoned kindred by the male line. But had
Matthew wrote before Luke, it can scarcely be
thought that he would have contented himself
with giving his genealogy by his supposed fa
ther, since he tells us expressly, that he was
bom of the virgin before she cohabited with
her husband. — As Joseph and Mary had their
fixed residence at Nazareth, Luke takes care
to show on wliat occasion she came to Bethelem
to be delivered of her son, according to the
ancient prophecies, which determined the Mes
siah's nativity to that town. But Matthew,
writing after Luke, speaks nothing at all of
this *. Further, by pointing out the occasion
of our Lord's birth in Bethlehem, Luke has
nearly fixed the time of it. He tells us that
it happened in the reign of Augustus the Ro
man emperor, and in the year he made the
census in Judea. The same Evangelist has
likewise fixed precisely the commencement of
the Baptist's ministry. It happened in the
15 th year of Tiberius, under the procurator-
* What follows, to " before Luke published his," p. 48, I.
13. inclusive, was added in the second edition.

[ 48 ]
ship of P. Pilate, and while Herod was tetrarch
of Galilee, &c. Annas and Caiaphas being
high priests. He has even mentioned our
Lord's age at his baptism ; and by that, com
pared with the commencement of John's
ministry, he has nearly fixed the time when
Jesus entered upon his. But throughout
the whole of the other Gospels there is
not, as far as I remember, so much aS
a single date to be found, whereby we can
judge of the time of any of the transactions
therein mentioned : a circumstance very im
probable, on the supposition that the rest
wrote their histories before Luke published his.
¦- — The election of the twelve apostles, having
been described by Luke, chap. vi. 13., is omitted
by Matthew. But the instructions given them
after their election are told at great length by
the latter; because the former had passed them
over in silence, intending to relate the recapi
tulation which Jesus gave of them immediately
before he sent his Apostles out, chap. ix. — In
like manner, our Lord's ministry in Perea,
having been fully treated of by Luke, is for the
most part omitted by the rest. Indeed, the
resurrection of Lazarus, which happened about

[ 4J) ]
that time, is not taken notice of by Luke, be-*
fcause the miracle was performed in Judea, and
At a village within two miles of Jerusalem.
Besides, Lazarus being probably alive when
Luke wrote, the latter might judge it improper
to mention his resurrection ; lest so public an
appeal to the offensive but well known truth,
which the Jews desired by all means to bury in
oblivion, should have provoked them to kill
Lazarus.- — ¦  ^—^ — ¦ — -Further, on the sup
position that Luke wrote befbre the other
Evangelists, their several histories of our
Lord's resurrection from the dead will appear
with greater propriety. For Luke, as became
the flrst historian, gives an account of the de
sign on which the women went to the Sepul
chre. He tells us, that, after Jesus was buried,
they prepared aromatic ointments, with which
they proposed to embalm him ; that, early the
first day of the week, they went to the Sepul
chre with those spices ; that, when they came,
they found the stone which closed the mouth
of the Sepulchre rolled away j that they en
tered, but did not find the body of the Lord
Jesus ; that, while they were in great perplexity
on this account, two angels appeared to them,
E

[ 50 ]
who informed them of Christ's resurrection;
that, on hearing the joyful news, they made
all the haste they could into the city, to inform
the Apostles ; and that Peter ran to the Sepul
chre, to examine the truth of their report.
Further, as became the first historian, he de
scribes particularly our Lord's appearances to
the male disciples. For he informs us, that
two of them, going to Emmaus, the same day
that their Master arose, saw him and conversed
with him ; that, when they returned to Jeru
salem, they were told by their brethren that
Jesus had appeared to Peter ; that they con
firmed this account by relating their own
story ; and, last of all, that Jesus himself put
the matter beyond doubt, by appearing to them
at that very meeting, while they were disputing^
about his resurrection. The male disciples being
the witnesses upon whose testimony the world
was to believe that our Lord arose from the dead^^
it concerned mankind more to be informed of
his appearances to them, than to be made ac
quainted with his appearances to the women.
Luke knew this ; and, therefore, while he has
related the appearances to the male Disciples,
he has omitted the appearances to the women

I 5i T
altogether. It seems, the brevity which he
studied did not permit that both should be
told *. In hke manner, the Apostle Paul,
1 Cor. XV. 4. &c. summing up the evidence of our
Lord's resurrection, takes no notice of his ap#-
pearances to the women; because they were
not to be the witnesses of this matter to the
World. His appearances to them were cal
culated purely for the confirmation of their
Own faith; and to do honour to their piety
and affection towards himi  ¦ The par
ticulars of our Lord's resurrection recorded
by the other Evangelists are evidently of less
importance ; though, at the same time, they are
such as tend to render Luke's relation more
complete. Thus, because he tells us that the
women found the stone rolled away from the
door of the Sepulchre, but does not say how it
came to be placed there, Matthew gives a par
ticular account of that circumstance, as well as
of the manner in which it was rolled away.
He says it was put to the mouth of the Sepul
chre hy Joseph^ and was rolled away by an
* What foUows, to " sffection tovrards him," i, il, inn
elusive, was added in the second edition.
E 2

E 52 1
angel. And, because there were two remarkable
particulars which had an immediate relation
to the stone, viz, the journey to the Sepulchre,
which the women undertook at the end of the
Sabbath, in order to see if the stone was still in
its place, and the planting of the guards at the
Sepulchre, he speaks particularly of both, and
informs us how the guards came to desert their
post. But then, as Luke had given an account of
, the visit which the women madein the moming,
and of the vision of two angels, Matthew does
not touch upon these things at all. Only, be
cause Luke had neither told that the women,
at the entrance into the Sepulchre, saw but one
of the angels, nor that Jesus himself appeared
to them as they were returning the second
time to the Sepulchre, nor yet that the guards
informed the chief priests of Christ's resur
rection, Matthew relates all these circumstan
ces particularly. And, to name no more,
Luke having given a full account of our Lord's
showing himself to the disciples who walked to
Emmaus, it is omitted by Matthew altogether.
Mark, who wrote after Matthew, and conse
quently after Luke, does not dwell on the par
ticulars mentioned by either of these histori-

[ 53 1
ans, but in a word or two hints at them ; viz.
the appearance of the one angel, as the women
were going into the Sepulchre ; then, the ap
pearances of Jesus himself, first to Mary Mag
dalene, next to the two Disciples, and, after
that to the eleven. Neither Matthew, nor
Luke speak of Christ's appearing to Mary Mag
dalene. Mark, as was observed, just mentions
it. But John, who wrote last, judging it too
important a branch of the history to be lost,
supplies the defect of the three former histo
rians, and gives an account of it at large,
wherein he has comprehended all that he
thought proper to add concerning the
resurrection,  —
To conclude: if Matthew wrote before Luke,
can it be imagined that he would have neglected
to give an account of so important a fact as our
Lord's ascension into Heaven*, in the presence
of his eleven disciples, surrounded with a
bright cloud, and attended by angels ? This
our Lord had told his Apostles they were to
behold, and had appealed to it as one of the
* What follows, to " had not been recorded befoj-e,"
p. 54, 1. 4. inclusive, was added in the lecond edition.

C 54 ]
strongest proofs of his having come from Hea»
ven, John xvi. 28, It was therefore a matter of
too much moment to be neglected by Matthew
and Mark, if it had not been recorded before.
. — Thus it appears, upon comparison, that
Luke's history comprehends the principal
transactions of our Lord's life ; and that the
things omitted by him are, generally speaking,
of less importance than those ojnitted by the
other historians: a character which distinguishes
his Gospel from the other three, and which
cannot easily be accounted for, unless on the
supposition that he wrote first : whereas,
granting this, we have a good reason for the
omissions of the other historians ; Luke had
gone befbre them, and prevented them ."  -^
Having thus considered the Internal Evidence
of St. Luke's Gospel, Macknight proceeds, in
his third section, to examine the External
Evidence, or " what light Antiquity fur-r
nishes, 3?or settling the Order of the
Gospels." Accordingly he notices what has
been said by the Early Fathers, and some later
ecclesiastical writers, on this head ; and, after
• balancing their contradictory accounts, states
the result of their arguments to be, in a certain

[ 55 ]
degree, in fiivour of St. Luke's having wtitffin
earlier than St. Matthew. He concludes this
immediate part with an argument, which I feel
it necessary to cite, because Michaelis, in noticing
it, may be supposed to consider it as one of the
most momentous of his whole hypothesis. —
" The Apostle's testimony, 2 Cor. viii. 1 8, we
have sent with him the brother, whose praise
is in the Gospel throughout all the churches^
would be decisive in this matter, could we be
sure that he speaks of Luke and his perform
ance. He was thus understood by Origen, Je
rom, and the Interpolator of Ignatius's Epistles,
amongst the Antients ; and by Grotius, Ham
mond, Cave, Whitby, with many others,
among the Moderns. And perhaps the only
reason, which has hindered people from apply
ing this to Luke, is the opinion which they
have taken up, I imagine without ground, that
his Gospel was not then published. Neverthe
less, when the arguments offered above are
considered, and it is remembered that Luke
was long Paul's companion in his travels, I
suppose it will appear, that the text quoted
cannot be more properly applied *."  He
* It is evidently thus apphea by our Church, ia the

[ 56 ]
afterwards proceeds to say, respecting the ge
neral question of the Order of tlie Gospels, —
Collect for St. Luke's day.  Macknight fiilly retains
his sense of the text, in his latest work, published at the
distance of near 40 years. In his note on 2 Cor. viii. 18,
he inclines to fix the writing of St. Luke's Gospel to the suf
years, which he supposes him tohave passed atPhihppi : where
he was with St. Paul, Acts xvi. 15. 16. bnt fiom whence
Paul and Silas departed without him, ver. 40 ; after which
no intimation is given of his being again with Paul till six
years afterwards, when we collect that Paid came again to
Philippi, and Luke sailed with him from thence. Acts xx.
6, and accompanied him to Jerusalein,  ^  •
This seems indeed a convenient period for this Evangelist's
writing his Gospel : which, in this case, was written be
tween the years 52 and 59, being begun about 19 or 20
yiears after the Ascension.  To this time and place of
St. Luke's writing his Gpspel, I apprehend, as few objec-.
tions occur, as tp any that have been fixed upon.  But
this it beside my purpose ; which was only to observe, that
Macknight fully retained his opinion of the text in ques
tion,  Dr, H, Owen, upon a supposition that St. Luke's
Gospel was written in Achaia? about the year 52, or soon
after, when St, Paul passed through Greece or the region
of Achaia, and, setthng at Corinth, continued there a year
pr six months, — and that it was dehvered to the Co
rinthians with his (St. Paul's) approbation, — observes, "It
was not without pecuhar propriety, (especially in writing
to them,) that he afterwards stilps St. Luke, its author, the..
brother whose praise is in the Gospel." Obiervations or?
THE Four Gospels, &c, p, 45, 46.

[ 57 ]
*' Since the proofs in this matter, drawn from
testimony, are so vague,  we are certainly
at liberty to form any opinion about it that
seems most probable. But, though the testi
monies of antiquity were much more full and
determinate than they are in favour of the
opinion commonly received, arguments drawn
from the Gospels themselves, to settle the order
and time of their being written, deserve a much
higher degree of regard, than can be claimed
by tradition ; which at best is but an uncertain
thing, and in many cases took its rise from
wrong senses put upon texts of Scripture,
which those traditions were designed to sup
port. Hence they were too hastily and indis
criminately received by the writers of the
fourth and subsequent centuries ; as all know,
who are conversant in matters of antiquity.
The tradition under consideration is, without
doubt, one of this kind ; the Fathers affirming
that Matthew and Mark wrote before Luke, for
no other reason but because the latter speaks of
some who had composed histories of Christ's
life before him."  ¦ 
I here close my extracts from Macknight's Hy
pothesis ; leaving it to have its own effect on

[ 58 ]
the judgment of the reader.  ^Whatever that
judgment may be, I incline to think that he
will feel, with me, some degree of surprise,
that arguments so temperately and pleasingly
offered to consideration, so qualified to conci
liate attention, have scarcely been noticed by a
single Theological Writer of any eminence, in
the course of more than fifty years which have
passed since they made their first appearance.
We may be tempted to ask, what has been the
cause of this?  Why it was little no
ticed by German Divines, an obviously assign-r
able reason may, I think, be found, in the ac
count soon after given of it by Michaelis. That
account is, indeed, most inadequate and imper
fect. "That St. Luke's Gospel was really
written before that of St.- Matthew," he ob
serves, " has been asserted by several Com
mentators in consequence of what St. Luke
says in his Preface." * — " Macknight espe
cially," he adds, " has devoted to this sub
ject a great part of his seventh Preliminary
* Marsh's Michaelis, vol. iii. p. 244. — Here he refers
to Beza ; citing his note, as modified in its second form,
in the edition of 1588.  1 rather wonder he lias not
referred to Gomar or Basnage.

[ 59 ]
Dissertation; and, in addition to the argument
deduced from St. Luke's Preface, has drawn a
conclusion, in favour of the early composition
of this Gospel, from a passage in St. Paul's
second Epistle to the Corinthians, &c." He then
cites the passage, with Macknight's apprehen
sion of it, as applying to Luke and his written
Gospel ; and he concludes all he says of Mac
knight with an objection, which he seems to
consider as completely fatal to any such appre
hension, of the passage. — The validity of that
objection I feel entitled to question : but I must
first observe, that the learned Professor has actu
ally passed over, without any notice whatever, the
whole second Section of Macknight's Hypothesis;
although it contains the most important arga--
ments on which that Hypothesis rests, — some
of which particularly deserve the notice of alJ
those, who wish to consider the question, " In
what order the three First Gospels were
written."  To this passage, whose praise is in
the Gospel throughout all the Churches, I will
now very briefly speak. — It appears to me, that
the objection of Michaelis is not so perfectly
founded, as he supposed. "If we admit," says he,
*' that St. Luke was the brother whom St. Paul

C 60 ]
gent, yet the word Gospel in this passage
ought not to be explained of St. Luke's written
Gospel: the word Gospel (ivxyhxtov) in the
writings of the Apostles and Evangelists de
notes the glad tidings of the Christian Reli
gion,, or the preaching of Christianity in ge
neral; and it was not till after their time, that
it acquired the sense of a ivritten narrative of
the life of Christ."  1 have here to observe,
that Ignatius, whom we may fairly consider as
contemporary with the Apostles, in his Epistles
to the Churches of Smyrna and Philadelphia,
which were written within a very few years
after the death of St. John, has used the word
{ivayUT^mv), at least four times, (according to
the opinion of the ablest judges *) in this par
ticular sense of the written history of the
Life of Christ. And if we consider the cir
cumstances under which the short and ge
nuine Epistles of Ignatius are said to have been
composed, we must, conclude that he made use
of the word, as one of fully established ac
ceptance in that sense, and certainly not pf
* See Jortin's Remarks, &.c. vol. I. p. 217, 218. — and
Lardner, vol. II. p. 81.; and Giabe, Mill, and Le Clerc,
\here referred to.

« It

[ 61 ]
novel fabrication. It must have been perfectly
well understood, before that time, in that
sense, in the Churches of Smyrna and Philadel
phia, — I would say, before the end of the
first century, probably not long after the writing
of St. John's Gospel according to its earlier as
sumed time of writing, but certainly before it,
according to its latest supposed date.  So
that the objection of Michaelis, in my opi
nion, has no good ground to rest upon ;
and his noticing this argument of Mac
knight, without intimating any other objec
tion to it, must, I think, be supposed to
give it weight*. - — This objection how-
* I would not take upon me to say, that the word
ii;«yrsAiu, in 2 Cor. viii. 18., taken singly by itself, stands
for a written Gospelj but I conceive, that St. Luke's Gos
pel may be fairly understood to be referred to in the whole
passage, taken together, xn ivxyUhm AIA HASfiN TfiN
EKKAHZUJN : and from hence might well arise, (I would
suppose,) soon after, the use of t» itia'/ATnov, standing
singly, for a written narrative of the Life of Christ. — On
this passage I feel a wish to say something more, when a
convenient opportunity may occur ; but I would not en
cumber this part of my Considerations with a long note,
which might seem to deviate into matter, in some degree,
extraneous.

t 62 ]
ever of Michaelis, together with his total dis^
regard of the greater and most material part of
Macknight's arguments, may well be assigned,
as a probable cause why the German Divines paid
so little attention to his Hypothesis. — I proceed to
enquire, how it happened that our own coun
trymen also have so much disregarded it. — Had
it appeared a few years before, it would probably
have attracted the notice of Dr. Lardner, and
have been fully and accurately considered by
him, in his Supplejient to the Credibility
&c. ; the two first volumes * of which he
published in the same year in which Mac
knight's Harmony first appeared. — But Lard
ner was then 72 ; and had completed this most
valuable part of his work with much labour and
great ability. Neither did he find, that what
he himself had advanced was in any very mate
rial point resisted by the ideas of a younger
man, writing on the same subject at the same
* Containing his History of the four Evangelists,
his Considerations Op the time of writing the Gos
pels, and Of the Question, Whether any one op
THE first three Evangelists had seen the Gospels
OF THE others, before HE WROTE ; together with I'he
History op St. Paul, &c, &c.

£ 63 J
time. — He therefore, I conceive, paid very little
attention to this part of Macknight's work ; or
indeed to any part of it, at its first appearance,
— ^This was certainly so. — On the publication of
the second edition, in I763, we know that he
read it with attention ; as he wrote and pub
lished, the following year, his Letter to Mac
knight, containing Observations upon Dr,
Macknight's Harmony of the four Gospels
AS far as relates to the history of our
Saviour's Resurrection, In the second
edition of the Harmony, little or no addition
is made to this part of the work * ; it follows,
therefore, that Lardner, who refers to the se
cond edition in his Letter, had paid no attention
to (what he considered) the objectionable ideas
of Macknight when they appeared in the first
edition. — This Letter of Lardner, then in his
height of reputation -|~, might have served to
* The passages censured by Lardner are all to be found
in the first edition of Macknight's Harmony,
f It was not published with Lardner's name. But, I be
heve, it was soon generally understood that he was the
.author. It is now pubhshed in the eleventh volume of his
WORKS.  1 cite some instances of lijs severe tone, and
pointed asperity.  " AU fiction, surely! But let us see.

[ 64 ]
give a more general notoriety to Macknight*^
work. But its very severe tone, and the
what this ingenious author says to support it." p, 363.
•  " For the present, I stay awhile to make some reflec
tions. For, Sir, I cannot forbear to complain of yoU,
and expostidate vrith you, IS this to do honour to the sa*
ered history ? In support of this fictitious journey, at
tempted, but not performed, you have made many suppo
sitions, without any authority from the Evangelists, I
shall observe some of them as distinctiy as I can in so per
plexed an argument, as yours is.  Where is
your authority for these suppositions?" — p. 367.' 
" The several suppositions, above mentioned, appear to
me to be made by you altogether without any ground or
foundation from the Evangelists. And therefore they are
unjustifiable, and must be of bad consequence. What
history can stand before such treatment ? It must be
perverted." — p. 371.  "Here I cannot forbear say
ing, that your Harmony of this part of the Evangehcal His
tory is very perplexed and intricate. —  ¦  There
are, undoubtedly, some real or seeming difficulties in this
part of the Evangehcal History: which, as it seems to
me,^ have been of late increased and multiplied by anno-
tatots J and other writers, and not at all diminished by
yourself." — p. 377. 378.  " Indeed this is agreeable
to the usual method of your Harmony : in which you make
two stories of one, and account such passages of the
Gospels to be different which are really parallel. Whereby,
in my opinion, and so far as I am able to judge, you have
often times perverted the true order of things related by

[ 65 ]
pointed asperity of its censure^ in some in
stances, must have operated materially to the
detriment of Macknight's literary reputation;
and must at the time have counteracted
the fair impartial reception of his woi-k in the
world. This might be one of the first causes,
that contributed to prevent Macknight's Hy
pothesis from meeting, in this country, with
that attention, to which I conceive, it is en
titled; and which, I cannot but fancy, it was
well calculated to excite. — Other circumstances,
just at that time also, concurred in diverting
the public attention from his opinion respecting
" the order in which the Gospels were written."
 In the same year, 1764, Dr. Henry
Owen, Rector of St. Olave in Hart Street, pub
lished his Observations on the four Gos
pels; tending chiefly to ascertain the
Times of their Publication, and to illus
trate THE form and MANNEfe OF THEIR COM
POSITION. — This little work recommended it
self particularly to the notice of the public,
the Evangelists." — p. 380.  'This language could
not but operate to the detriment of an important. work,
httle known in its first edition, and then just appearing in
" a second edition, corrected and greatiy enlarged,"
F

[ 66 ]
from the sound piety, well-known candour,
and acknowledged learning of its able and ami
able author. Short, clear, unpretending, it
was, with the most conciliating humility, " sub
mitted to the judgment of the learned :" while
its object was avowed to be " the developement
of that important truth, from which nothing but
good can flow *." — " The learned" appreciated
it accordingly. I well remember the effect
which it produced ; as, when I first went to the
University, forty years ago, it was particularly
pointed out to me, by a learned and truly amia
ble Dignitary of the Church, an able judge of
Theological publications, as a book of superior
excellence, to which I should do well to look up
in my friture reading of the Gospels -f-. — Having
* I would justify my own speculations, or at least my
own idea of them, under the same motto :
Z)1t2 THN aX'TiBeiav, Jip' 195 yjjif ¦sraii'oTE iSxa^n.
M, Antonin, L, VI. §. 21,
-|- It seems to have been considered as upon a par with the
writings of Michaehs and of Lardner. — Bp. Percy, in his
Key of the New Testament, published in 1765, exhibits
Dr, Owen's scheme of the times, places, and occasions of
writing the Gospels, together with that of Michaehs as
acceded to by Lardner. — Dr. Owen's work has been noticed
by most of our piincipal vsoiters on the Gospels since j

[ 67 ]
stated (sect. 1.) his opinions of the Antient Fa
thers, respecting the dates of the several Gos
pels, and the order in which they were generally
agreed to have been written. Dr. Owen considers
these opinions (sect, ii.) " as taken upon trust,"
— as mere " collected reports, set down for
certain truths, which others adopted with im
plicit reverence," — as "traditions that passed
on from hand to hand without examination,"
— so that " little dependance is to be laid on
these external proofs." He proceeds, therefore,
to enquire ; " whether any thing can be inferred
from the internal construction of the Gospels
themselves, for or against" the points in ques
tion. — And here he thinks that there is clear
incontestable ground for the priority of St. Mat
thew's Gospel, in " St. Luke's having applied
it to his own use," when writing his own Gos~
pel, by actually copying his (St. Matthew's)
who are totaUy silent respecting Macknight's Hypothesis.
 Dr, Townson terms it " the valuable Observations
of the learned Dr, Owen, On the four Gospels,".  ¦¦

And Bp. Percy characterises him, "the learned and ingenious
Dr. Owen, who has opened a new source of information ;
and, by comparing the original language of the several Evan
gelists, has started inany new hints, which had escaped
former enquirers."
F 2

[ 68 ]
words ; — in its bearing " on its surface the
marks of its being primarily intended for the
benefit of the Jews," who stood in need of an
early Gospel, and to whom the earliest Gospel
was accordingly supplied, while that of St.
Luke was written fifteen years later for the use
of the Gentiles ; — and in its " abounding with
other characters strongly expressive of the same
design." He supposes all the Gospels to have
been " penned by the sacred historians under a
constant regard to the circumstances of the per
sons for whom they wrote : so that tHis regu
lated the conduct of their narration, — deter
mined their choice of materials, — induced them
to contract or enlarge ; — in short, this modified
their histories, and gave them their different
colourings," — " St. Matthew's Gospel thus con
sidered," he proceeds to say, " manifestly ap
pears to have been penned at a time, when the
Church was labouring under a heavy persecu
tion. For it contains many obvious references
to such a state, and many dexterous applications
both to the injurious and injured party ; being
written with a view to the consolation of the af
flicted Christians suffering under the severest
persecution ever raised against the Church,

[ 69 ]
while consisting of Jewish Converts only, (viz,
that begun by the Sanhedrim after the death of
St. Stephen, and continued by Saul with im
placable rage and furj^,) and as a warning to
those who oppressed and injured them*." —
Having, on these grounds, concluded that St.
Matthew's Gospel was certainly " written early,
and for the sake of the Jews, being adapted to
* The passages, in St. Matthew's Gospel, to which Dr.
Owen refers in support of this argument, I observe, are all
taken from the Discourses of our Lord; in which the
Gospel of St. Matthew abounds.  But on" making the
experiment whether a certain proportion of these passages
might not be found also in St. Luke's Gospel, the fact is,
much the gi-eater part of them are recorded by St. Luke
also. • — In the tenth chapter, for instance. Dr. Owen re
fers to seventeen verses, or texts ; and sixteen of these are
actually to be found in St. Luke's, Gospel, almost exactly
in the same words. It may be noticed also, that the Dis
course of our blessed Lord in this chapter is positively ad
dressed to his disciples exclusively ; and cannot therefore,
with perfect propriety, be argued upon as regarding (" pri
marily") the great body of the Jewish nation,  •
In the fifth chapter. Dr. Owen refers to twenty-seven verses :
but of these more than twenty are to be found in St. Luke's
Gospel also.  The surplus in St. Matthew,' according to
my idea of his Gospel as intimated by Papias, (TaAOIIA
miiy,fa\a,i:a,) is less than I could suppose. —  vVhat
ground then has Dr. Owei)'s argument, here, to rest upon ?

[ 70 3
their peculiar circumstances," he proceeds to
characterise it (sect, iii.) as " necessarily defec
tive in several particulars, respecting the life of
our Saviour, which nearly concerned the Gen
tiles." — A further and fuller Gospel, then, (as
he supposes,) being requisite " to satisfy the en
quiries and supply the wants of these Heathen
Converts," he says, " St. Luke, a person in
all respects qualified for the work, wrote his
Gospel for the Gentile Christians. 
Writing therefore to the Gentiles, who were far
remote from the scene of action, and conse
quently ignorant of Jewish affairs, it was in
cumbent upon him, in order to accomplish
what he had in view, to trace the subject quite
up to its source, and to proceed through the
whole of our Saviour's ministry in a circumstan
tial and methodical order. — Hence it is, that
he begins his history with the birth of John the
Baptist, as introductory to that of Christ, —
that, in the course of it, he mentions several
particulars omitted by St, Matthew, — that he
is so careful in specifying times and places, to
gether with other circumstances of facts that
were highly conducive to the information of
strangers, though they needed not to be recited

[ 71 ]
to the Jews, who could easily supply them from
their own knowledge. Hence also it is, that he
sets before them the genealogy of Christ, ac
cording to his natural descent, — and carries it
up as high as Adam, in order to show that he
was that Seed of the Woman, who was pro
mised for the Redemption of the whole world."
— In a note subjoined, Dr. Owen here observes,
" These circumstances which an ingenious
Harmonist thinks inexplicable on any other
supposition than that of St. Luke's being the
first writer, appear now, I presume, very con
sistent with the notion of his being the second,
and writing for the instruction of the Gentiles."
 Thxs gentle Ovation oi conscious supe
riority, in the eminently learned writer, over the
" INGENIOUS * Harmonist," could not but have
* It may be right to observe, that I do not mean to in
sinuate an imputation on Dr. Owen, as here repeating, in
tentionally and invidiously, the epithet apphed by Lardner,
in his objurgatory Letter to Macknight : " Let us see,
what this ingenious author says to support it !" See note,
p. 64. supra.  The peculiar candour of Dr. Owen seems
to have been such, as to make this impossible. Indeed,
had he been aware of its having been thus apphed before,
I have no doubt but he would have abstained from the use
of it. -.— . But it strongly marks his real opinion of Mac-

C 72 ]
the most decided effect ; and must have co-ope^
rated, powerfully, with Lardner's Letter
above-mentioned, in diverting the public atten
tion from Macknight's work, and especially
from any. thing in it that appeared to be novel,
or seemed to savour of ingenious fabrication,
—  Several of Dr. Owen's arguments,
which I have here referred to, appear to me
more refined than solid, and seem open to consi--
derable objections * : but if the proof is made
knight's Hypothesis, as fancifully refining. ¦^—  I be
heve some such opinion, respecting the Harmony, and its
author, w^s mpch prevalent at that time among our En
glish Divines ; as 1 cannot fix upon any one Theological
Work, of that period, which 1 so rarely heard noticed in
any way whatever.
* 1 much doubt, if it can be justly said, that any one of
the Gospels was " primarily intended" for any particular
early period or circumstances of tlie Christian Church," or
for any particular class or congregation of Christians, —
that its references and " dexterous apphcations" were
of any hmited exclusive nature, — and that it was
" modified and coloui'ed" with any sucli particidar
view, — 1 cannot but deprecate all such ingenious
conjectures. — They appear to me perfectiy unnecessary,
and tend only to diminish the interest with wliich we, at
this day, read the Gospels, as comprehensively addressing
themselves, with full piimary powers, equally to our-

[ 73 1
out by him, as he thinks it is, in his Col-»
lations (p. 32 — 43.), that St. Luke " quoted
selves, and to Christians of eveiy age, and under every
possible circumstance of the Christian Church, from the
first aera of its establishment even to the latest moment of
its continuing a Church mihtant here on earth.  Tlie
Gospel of our Salvation, whether considered as a whole,
or in its four component parts, is that great, eternal
code, which is of all times and circumstances; and
of which to think otherwise is to derogate from its divinely
constituted, and (may I not say?) interminable extensi-
bihty.  When our blessed Lord gave his concluding
commission to his Disciples, as recorded by St. Matthew,
(c. xxviii. 19.) Go and teach all nations, — we must surely
understand it, as applying to a written Gospel no less than
to an oral one.  The command therefore, in effect,
extends to aU ages, as well as to all nations.  But learned
men fancy they see in St. Matthew's Gospel plain indica
tions of its having been written for a particular period of
time. They consider it as evidently calculated for, and
written in a time of severe persecution. Hence Dr. Owea
fixes it to the persecution after the death of St. Stephen
about the year 38 ; whUe Bp. Percy, admitting the pre
mises, draws other conclusions, and carries it on to the later
persecution of the Jewish Christians of Palestine about the
year 60. But to these many other persecutions soon suc
ceeded; and for several ages the Christian Church, labouring
at times under various afflictions, stood in almost constant
need of Gospel consolation andsupport. — This.those Gospels,
which contain raostfaHy the Discourses of our blessed Lord^

[ 74 J
largely from St. Matthew," this would be unde
niable evic:ejice, that " St. Luke must necessa-
largely comprehensive in their objects, have ever held out,
and still hold out to all, who suffer for their Faith in
Christ.  To argue that any one of the Gospels, and es
pecially so important a one as that of St. Blatthew, was
penned exclusively, or "primarily,'' with anysuch particular
hmited view, is, in my judgment, sadly to narrow the en
larged ideas, which we must ever delight to entertain of the
infinitely great and glorious purposes of the Gospel of
Christ, as recorded by the Four Evangelists under the im
mediate Inspu^ation of tlie Holy Spirit.  I cannot, in
deed, any wise accede to the arguments of the learned au
thor, for thus establishing " certain Criteria," whereby to
ascertain the dates of the respective Gospels. — Neither can
I,by any means admit, or indeed well comprehend, his sub
sequent ai'gument, " that " St. Matthew's Gospel, being
confessedly written for the sake of the Jews, and conse
quently adapted to their pecuhar chcumstances, must ne
cessarily be defective in several particulars which nearly
concerned the Gentiles."  "Necessarily defective I"
— What ? — Is one of our most important Gospels, from its
original temporary and local circumstances, rendered any
wise defective in those interesting particulars, wliich ma
terially concern the larger body of those, for whose benefit
it was manifestly intended ? — But for what purpose should
it be so ? From this defalcation, what advantage hath the
Jew 9 Wherein was the Jewish Convert to Christianity, in
reading St. Matthew's Gospel, benefited by his omission of
any thing recorded by St. Luke ? — On tlie conti-ary, was it

[ 75 ]
rily have written after St. Matthew :" — and as
such it was, I believe, actually received by many
not absolutely necessary for tiie Jewish Behever to know
most of those facts, (or rather all of them,) which are ex
clusively recorded by St. Luke ?  Whatever was fore
shown respecting the Messiah, in the writings of their
antient Prophets, it was, surely, materially important for
them to find clearly recorded as having been actuaUy accom
plished, so as to fulfil minutely the very letter of the Pro
phecy.  Of the additional circumstances, noticed hy
Dr. Owen to have been omitted by St. Matthew as unimpor
tant to the Jevys but recorded by St. Luke as what con
cerned the Gentiles, I wiU just speak to the one which he
first mentions, viz. " the biith of St. John.''  And
here I have no hesitation in affirming that the phecursory
BIRTH, as well as the precursory Ministry, of the messenger,
foretold by Malachi (c. iii. 1. iv. 7.) to be sent to prepare the
way before the Lord, — was frill as necessary to be read by
the Jewish Convert, as by the Gentile, (or rather more so,)
for the purpose of convincing him, that Jesus Christ was
actually, in every the most minute incidental circumstance,
THAT Messiah, whom they (the Jews) acknowledged to be
foreshown in the books of their antient Prophets; and
whose coming, in completion of those Prophecies, they
accordingly looked for, — being prepared, and bound to
acknowledge him flDr the true Messiah in whom aU these
prophecies were at once fully and literally accomphshed. —
Now, if this may be said of " the birth of Jolm," how much
more strongly may it be argued respecting the other impor
tant feicts exclusively recorded by St. Luke?  On this

[ 76 ]
learned persons at that time.  ;
Fourteen years after Dr. Owen had published
ground I feel entitled to resist several of Dr. Owen's argu-^
ments, as, in my judgment, invahd, and erroneous. 
Having in the first part of this note, referred to St. Matthew,
o. xxviii. 19., 1 beg to observe, that this important passage
is more than a fair set off, (if any such may seem requi
site,) against an argument of Dr. Owen, in a note p. 15
of his Observations:  "Among other instruc
tions," he says, " delivered by our Saviour to the Apos
tles, St. Matthew records the following. Go not
into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the
Samaritans enter ye not; x. 5, Whether this be any
proof or intimation that he wrote his Gospel for the sake of
the Jews, and before the conversion of the Gentiles, let
others determine. No such words are however to be
found either in St. Mark's or St. Lwke's Gospel." That
the Gospel was actually first preached to the Jews,
and to them exclusively during our Lord's immediate minis
try, is one of those facts which, in my judgment, it was
requisite for some one of the Evangehsts to record ; for the
information of aU future Gospel readers of all ages and
nations. — Our blessed Lord thus limited his first Com^
mission to his Aposties, in opening his Instructions to them.
Those Instnictions, it has been oliserved p. 43, St. Luke
omitted to relate; of course he eould not relate this limi
tary one. — For St. Mark's omission various reasons might
be assigned. — ^At all events I see no argument here for St,
Matthew "having written for the sake of the .Jews, and
befiDre the conversion of the Gentiles." The important

[ 77 ]
his Observations, another most inter
esting work on the same subject, and in
some degree on the same plan, but more in
detail, made its appearance ; and peculiarly
attracted the notice of our Theologians. 
It may be needless to specify, that I allude to
Dr. Townson's Discourses on the Four
Gospels, chiefly with regard to the pecu
liar design of each, and the order and
PLACES IN which THEY WERE WRITTEN. 
It was first published in the year 1778 ; when
he was only B. D. : but, early in the following
year, the University of Oxford bore its distin
guished testimony to the eminent merit of the
Author, and his work, by conferring upon
him unanimously, in full convocation, the de
gree of Doctor in Divinity by diploma, cha
racterising him, therein, as a man " who,
passage of his Gospel, in wliich Chiist gives the last unli
mited Commission to his Disciples, has, indeed, been ad
duced as an ai'gument for St. Matthew's later writing ; even
after tiie conversion ofthe Gentiles. Percy's Key, p. 52. — I
would not lay much stress upon either passage, with a view
to the consequences deduced. — ^They are both however im
portant in the highest degree, particularly illustrating each
other ; and, not being recorded by St. Luke, on Macknight's
Hypothesis, are to be considered as the interesting additions
of a supplementary Evangehst.

[ 78 ]
having successfully applied his great and sin
gular abilities and acquirements to the expla
nation of the sacred Scriptures, by illustrating
the writings of the Holy Evangelists, laying
open the particular views and designs of each,
and displaying the credibility and agreement
of all, had promoted the study of Divinity,
under the general applause of the learned
world*."  -The "applause," with which this
publication was received, was, I believe, in
deed, very general. There is a " suavity of
inanner" in the work, which carries no small
degree of fascination with it. And the cha
racter of Dr. Townson stood so high in general
estimation, for the purest piety, the most en
larged benevolence, and the best and most po
lished literature, that the public mind, (to the
credit of that immediate time, be it recorded!)
" " Cumque vir reverendus Thomas Townson, S, T, B.
Collegii Magdalenae ohm socius, largas ingenii et doctiinae
copias, quibus unice instructus est, in sacris literis exph-
candis feliciter intenderit, beatorum Evangelistanim scripta
illustrando, singulorum mentem et consUia apeiiendo, om
nium fidem et harmoniam exponendo, pia, plaudentibus
undique eruditis, studia promoverit.  Nos igitur, &c.
— — Churton's Account of Townson, p, x-xxvu.

[ 79 1
was predisposed to receive, in the most favour
able manner, any thing that came from his
pen,  A second edition of his Discourses,
&c. appeared in the year 17S8 ; if not with
increased, at least with undiminished reputa
tion.  The great and pleasing object which
this learned and most amiable writer had im
mediately in view, we may collect *, was to
* I venture to consider that as his object, in his work,
which his Biographer considers as the result of it. " As to
himself," says Mr. Clmrton, " what afforded him prin
cipal content, in the course of his researches, and upon
the final issue of them, was to find that tbe internal evidence
all alongconfirmed external testimony ; that the Gospels were
pubhshed in the same order in which they now stand ; and
that each of them was wTitten with that sj;ecial view
and design which the early Fathers and the tradition
of the Church respectively assign to them." p. xxxv. — I
presume, in an early stage of his speculations on this sub
ject, the possibility of clearly proving this forced itself oa
his mind; and that, when he sat down to enlarge his single
Sermon, preached before the University, he had this object
most fully in view ; and felt animated by the idea, that, ia
pursuing it, he should materially serve the Cause of the
Rehgion of Christ, by thus estabhshing propositions so
congenial to his own zealous wish for congruity and ac
cordance in every thing connected with Gospel Truth, and
the Eeoords of its inspired Historisins.  1 could fancy.

[ 80 ]
jjrove that " the internal evidence (of the Four
Gospels) all along confirmed the external testi-
fhat his first consideration of the question was suggested by
his having seen Macknight's Harmony soon after its first
appearance in 1755 ; and by his regarding the Hypothesis,
respecting the Order of the Gospels, as in some respects
of a dangerous tendency, and therefore requiring to be
counteracted by a Vindication of the common order. — His
Biographer says, " the Seiinon that opens the subject was
first preached in substance in the parish church of Bhth-
field:  and probably when he was the Rector." If so, it
was preached before the year 1759; as he resigned Bhthfield
early in that year : and, from other circumstances in his
life, we may coUect it was before the year 175S.  From
the beginning of 1758, in consequence of an accession of
fortune from the bequest of a friend, he appears for several
years to have been occupied in establishing himself at what
was to be-his futm'e residence, and in commencing his
parochial labours so as to fulfil in the best manner possible
the important duties of his relative situation. About the
year 1766 he seems to have had more leisure for some inte
resting hterary pursuits, and we trace him, in the pleasing-
account of his Life, through these and other occupations to
tlie year 1770; which, after an absence of rather more
than a twelvemonth from his parochial daties, was de
voted to the zealous renewal of them, and of his Theolo
gical studies. In the middle of the following year he
preached, before the University of Oxford, (on Act Sun
day,) the Sermon, "probably enlarged and much re-con
sidered, which he had before preached in substance at

[ 81 ]
mony, that the Gospels were written in the
same order in which they now stand ; and that
each of them was written with that special view
Bhthfield.  His revelling to this subject was possibly oc
casioned by Dr. Owen's Work ; which it does not appear to
me that he had frdl leisure attentively to read, and materially
to consider, till about this period. While he agreed with Dr.
Owen in the material point, that the second Evangelist
copied from the first, he difiered with him in his conclu
sions respecting the second Evangelist ; and could not as
sent to his disregard of the authority- of the Fathers. — —
When called upon to preach before tlie University, on a
pubhc occasion, he felt stimulated to call the attention of
that learned body to a subject, which within the pre
ceding 15 years had been twice pubhcly entered upon, but
not treated to his full satisfaction ; and he laid before
them his own ideas upon the question, matured by time,
and perfected by repeated consideration. " His learned
audience," says his Biographer, " desired him to publish
what they had heard with so much satisfaction. Such ,
approbation induced him maturely to re-consider the sub
ject ; and he threw into an appendix the proofe of certain
points, which it had been necessary in his Sermon to
assume as^ granted. The matter grew upon him, tiU the
work acquired its present form and size. Having submit
ted it, at different times, to the perusal and censm'e of
some very learned and judicious friends, he at last, in
comphance ¦with their solicitations, gave up the manuscript
tor pubhcation." Churton's Account, p. xxxii.
G

[ 82 ]
and design, which the early fathers and the
tradition of the church respectively assign to
therti."  His zealous wish to prove that this
was so, seems soon to have risen into a confi
dence that it admitted of demonstration from
the internal evidence of the four Gospels them
selves ; and, accordingly, besides extending
tbe comparisons between the several Gospels
further than Dr. Owen had done, and, upon
the principle of one Evangelist copying from
the other, drawing conclusions more favourable
to his own immediate theory, he proceeded to
press every argument into the service of it,
which the Gospels seemed to afford ; and some-
tirnes, it appears to me, (may I be forgiven for
saying so ?) without fully considering whether
the arguments * he has advanced were not in
some instances more shadowy than substan
tial, and, in others, whether they, in every
* That " St. Matthew wrote, not only anterior to St. Mark
and St. Luke, but, several years before either of them>" in fact,
that " he wrote very early," Dr. Townson takes upon him to
prove, under ten difi"erent heads, or circumstances,. notice
able in his Gospel. — Discours. p. I07.  The substance
of each of these I proceed toexhibit seriatim ; offering such
observations, as occur to me thereon,— —That " St. Mat-

[ 83 ]
respect, justified his statement of thentii  -*
Unquestionably, through every part of his most
thew wrote very early," Dr. "Townson argues : First, Because
" He alone terms Jerusalem the Holy City, — the City of
the great King, — the Holy Place ; while neither Mark nor
Luke so speak of it.  These tities of sanctity she
(Jerusalem) claimed by prescription when Matthew wrote
(i. e. within a short time after the Ascension) ; but as the
word of God was received in other cities, they also became
sanctified, while Jerusalem, by rancorous opposition to
the ti-uth, dechned in the esteem of the behevers ; who,
between the publication of Matthew's Gospel and the next,
were taught to transfer the idea of the Holy City to a wor
thier object. See Galat. iv. 25. 26. Heb. xu. 22 :"  -. — ¦
Secondly, Because " He terms the Temple, twice, the
Temple of God. First, where St. Mark and St. Luke sim
ply term it the Temple ; and, secondly, where St. Mark,
recording a deposition, differentiy worded, of the same
fact, says, this Temple that is made with hands."  " The
Temple," he adds, " had a pecuhar sacredness tiU the Son
of God came to tabernacle among men, and even till He
our passover was sacrificed for us. Yet only St. Matthew
continues on this sacredness to the death of Christ, No
other Evangehst terms it the Temple of God, in treating of
a time after the birth of our Lord. St. Lukespealcs of an ac
tion done before it, when he says that Zacharias went into
the Temple of the Lord to burn incense, i. 9."  • To
this second argument I might offer several objections
In the first place, when Matthew (c. xxi.. 12.) speaks of
the Temple of God (to ispov t5 ©eS), and Mark and Luke,
G 2

[ 84 1
pleasingly written work are to be found many
very able and judicious observations, of essen-
on the same occasion, speak simply of the Temple, — the
words tS ©;S, in the passage of St. Matthew, are not in
some MSS. of high authority, nor in several antient ver
sions ; dfad are omitted tvrice, in citing the passage, by
Origen : and by Chrysostom and Hilary. And Bengel, in
His Apparatus Criticus, having referred to some of these
instances of this omission, observes, nusquam in tola his
toria EVangelicd Temphlm Hierosolymitanum dicitur ro Ufov
TS ©.'5.  In the second instance (e. xxvi. 61.), Dr.T.him-
self intimates there were two different depositions respecting
the actual words of Jesus.  Tliis might ie the point,
in which, as Mark observes, their witness did not agree
together, an lo-u w li ftapTupia avrm. c. xiv. 59.  If St,
Mark had aheady written, and recorded the one, St. Mat
thew, I presume, if he knew it, would record the other :
and if he wrote first, he would select the one which tended
most to criminate. — At all events the additional words t3
©ES subjoined to tov vkov were not Matthew's own words,
but recorded by him, as the actual words of the witness.
And the feet is, Matthew uses 6 vao; seven times simply
by itself, and has never given the adjunct tb ©eS but
in this one passage,  If Matthew's use of to iejou
TS ©£B, in one somewhat questionable instance, can be
supposed to have any great weight, I would consider St.
Luke's TOU vaov t5 Kupi«, as a fair set off against it : so far,
at least, as to claim an equal earhness of writing for St. Luke.
What I mean to say is this ; if the distinction suggested by
Dr. Townson had been actually and accurately made when St.

C 85 ]
tial use to the pious and learned Readers of the
Gospels; but, viewing it as 9, whole, which
Luke wrote, I think he would not have used a discarded
description of the Temple, even in relating a fact, just
previous to the commencement of that dispensation which
caused this description to be thus discai'deJ. Indeed
there was no inducement to him to use it. It was abso-
Ivitely uimecessary ; as i£§aT£UEi» itam ts ©=£ stands so im
mediately before the passage, Hi§ use of vaov tk Kupis,
therefore, makes me suppose the combination was a phrase,
by no means obsolete, but, of common use when he (Luke)
wrote. If therefore the phrase soon grew obsolete, as the
argument supposes, it fiirnishes me with an argument for
St, Luke's e^rly writing.  Althougl^ I have been, here,
led to answer, somewhat in detaU, these arguments of th^
learned writer, it is in fact needless for me thus to do.  —
To these two first circumsta,nces, or heads of argument,
adduced to prove St. Matthew's early v«iting. Dr. Town-
son had before furnished a short, but most satisfactory
answer in his account of St. Matthew, in his Preliininary
Discourse, p. 23, " We find in St. Matthew the marks
of his relation to Galilee, where he had been bred and em
ployed : the style of one who had imbibed and retained
the vijNEKATiON of his people for their City andTEMPLE."
 ¦- — :  »  He proceeds to argue that
St. Matthew wrote very esgcly. Thirdly, Because " He
uses the word Qospel (wafyiMon), four times, in the gene-
rs^l sense of any good tidings ; in three of them com
bining the words, of the kingdom ; the word Gospel
ftot ^eing yet become an appropiiate term of the Churclj

[ 86 ]
points to one object, by proving what he
had assumed in his previous discourse, as
for the good tidings declared by Christ and his Apostles.
When St. Mark wrote, the sense was famihar ; he says
simply the Gospel, in several places."  :  1 might
here observe, that ahnost in limine, actually in his account
of the first preaching of Jesus Christ, St. Mark has not
only the combination the Gospel of the Kingdom, but has ex
tended it stiR further to the Gospel of the Kingdom of God,
xri^va-irm to cvaFy^Xiov T-ii; /Soo-iXeios; t5 ©es, C. i. 14. ; thus ex
plaining fuUy his intended sense of tvyJyikim in ver. 1. pre
ceding, and m his subsequent use of it in the other parts
of his Gospel.  But my principal object is the question
of priority between St. Luke and St. Matthew ; and not
between St. Mark and St. Matthew. Here then 1 have to
observe, that St. Luke never once uses the substantive
juafyEXiov, throughout the whole of his Gospel. (He uses
it twice in the Acts. Shall 1 say, this indicates some time hav
ing elapsed between his writing the former and latter trea
tise PJ In his Gospel he constantly conveys whatever he has to
say respecting the Gospel by the verb svafyiXt^w, which he
found consecrated to his purpose in the Septuagint version
of Isaiah, Ixi. 1 ., as recorded in his own Gospel to have
been apphed by our blessed Lord to himself, Luke xiv. IS.
.  This I might call an indication of Luke's writing
before EUKfysXiov had risen into established use, as signify
ing the good tidings declared by Christ and his Apostles.
I, would further say also, that this Gospel (to
tua/yEXiov t5to) as used by our blessed Lord at the very conclu
sion of his Ministry (St. Matthew, c. xxvi. 13.,) may well be

[ 87 J
above stated to have been his particular scope,
I incline to think, its effect will be found to
supposed intended by that Evangelist to comprehend the ac
count of the Life, Mii-acles, Mipistry, and Disconrses of our
blessed Lord, as first preached, and afterwards written and
published, by the Aposties and Evangelists. And this is ac
tuaUy admitted by Schleusner. — — — From considering St.
Matthew's use of waFysXiov in this place, I certainly should
draw a conclusion for his later writing. 
Fourthly, Because " The language of an early writer
appears in St. Matthew's speaking of the Aposties, at his
first enumeration of them, c. x. 2., as the twelve Apostles,
and after tiiat constantiy as the twelve Disciples, except in
three places in c. xx\i., where he simply says the twelve^
(in one of which places he had prepared us to understand
who the twelve were, and in the two others of which Dr.
Tovrason assigns a reason for his using the phrtvse tb.^
twelve,) — whUe the other Evangelists begin early with the
appeUation the twelve, and scarce use any other." 
Here J have several httle olgections to make,  In the
first. place, Sj;. Matthew's " constant" use of the twelve
Disciples amounts only to three tinies ; one of which is
c, x. ver. 1. . so that the " constant" use of it after ver. 2,
as above stated, must be reduced to twice, viz. c. xi, 1.
XX. 17.  But he appears to me to have used the ex
pression the twelve (oi ^uhxa.) a fourth time, in tl^e origi
nal Greek, where it is lost in pur translation. I aUude to
c. X. ver. 5. Tsts; TOTS AfiAEKA amrEiXEv o Ua-S?, — which
our version renders. These twelve Jesus sent, but which I
should certainly render. These, being the twelve, Jesus

[ 88 ]
rest principally, if not entirely, like the obser^
vations of Dr. Owen, on his comparison of
se»i,i.e."These, HissELECTED TWELVE, &c." Had thesenseex-
pressed in our version been alone intended, I think, Matthew
would have written Ts; Jw Jexk tstsj, as in c. xxvi. 13. — Iva
£av'xi9fux^? '^° Eua/iyEXiov tsto, wherever THIS Gospel shall fee
preached, &c.' — I say, then, Matthew uses the phrase, simply,
the twelve, four times; the twelve Apostles once only, i. e. in
enumerating them ; and the twelve Disciples once before,
and twice after the enumeration of the Aposties, His
f' constant" use of the twelve Disciples, as stated, consists,
then, in two instances only,  1 wUl now look to St,
Luke's manner of speaking ofthe Aposties.  Having
recorded, c. iv. 13., that Christ chose, out of all his Dis
ciples, twelve Aposties, he speaks of them as the twelve,
five times, viz. c. vui. 1. ix. 12. xvUi. 31. xxU. 3. 47.
But, for his use of the phrase in the two last instances, the
same reason, that Dr. Tpwnson assigns for Matthew's use
of it twice in c. xxvi, is equally assignable ; and in the
second instance, c. ix. 12, St. Luke had so fiiUy prepared
us, in the two preceding verses, to " understand who the
twelve were," that the word jaaSnToti would have been
tautologisticaUy superfluous. ' So tiiat St. Luke's use
of the phrase, the twelve simply, may be considered as
reduced to twice. He also speaks opce of them under the
name of the twelve Disciples, viz. ix. 1 . and once he calls
them the twelve Apostles, viz. xxii. 14.' To balance
. the account then between the two Evangelists ; — after
setting off Matthew xxvi. 14. 47. against Luke xxii. 3. 47,
and xxvi. 14. of the former against is, 12, of the latter,

[ 89 ]
the three first Gospels, and the proofs resulting
from it, that each of the three first Evange-
the state of the account wUl be as follows : Matthew uses
the twelve simply once; and the twelve Disciples, or
Apostles, four times, wlule Luke qses the twelve, simply,
twice; and the twelve Apostles, or Disciples, twice also, —
Here then is no great balance of proof,  And surely
the more perfect Grcecity of St, Luke's language, now ge-
raUy admitted, may be assigned as a reason for his using
ct JoiJEJto. singly, when the adjunct of Apostles, or Disciples,
did not appear in some respect necessary,  Thp ol
TfiaxovTK, the oi hxa, and various instances in the Grecian
Historians, amply justify his doing so, 
Fifthly, Because " Ihere is a difference between St.
Matthew and the two other Evangelists, in speaking of St,
John,  St, Mark at first calls him the brother of James;
hut as soon as he had related the death of the Baptist,
changes his style, and calls him only John,  When St.
Luke first mentions him, he entities him the son of Zebe
dee, but never afterwards : whUS. St,. Matthew, who often
says singly Peter, has not named St. John without adding,
that he was the son of Zebedee, or the brother of James.
The reason seems tq be, that in a course of years this
Apostie was so eminent in the Church, that John, without
epithet or distinction, was understpod to be John the
Apostle; but, when St, Matthew wrote, to be rather
John the Baptist,"  ¦_ —  .  ,  But the fact
is, John is never mentioned, singly, by St, Mattiiew, as
the son of Zebedee. He and James are both spoken of,
Withqut their n^mes, (c. xx,vi. 37.) as the sons of ^ebedee.

[ 90 ]
lists vouched the order in which they wrote,
by palpably copying from the one or both,
James is twice mentioned by St. Matthew as the son of
Zebedee, where John is also mentioned as his brother, c. iv.
21. X. 2. And John is also spoken of (c. xvii. 1.) as the
brother of James. I beheve John is nowhere else men
tioned by St. Matthew.  St. Matthew seems
to me studiously to have disting^uished Zebedee him
self. He speaks of hini with a certain distinction, c.
iv. 21, where he repeats his name, somewhat unneces
sarily, in the latter part of the verse : he also twice men
tions his wife, not by her name Salome, nor as the mo
ther of James and John, but as the motlier of Zebedee' s
children, or, as it should be rendered, of the spns of
Zebedee, c. xx, 20. xxvii. 56.  1 can see no
ground here for Dr. Townson's argument.  Let us
however look to the two other Evangelists, as refeiTed to
by him.  In proof of his argument from St. Mark's
Gospel, he subjoins in a note, " Compare Mark i. 19,
iii. 17. V. 37. with ix. 2."  1 have chosen to look to,
every instance, where this Evangelist, in any way, speaks
of St. Jolm : and he does it no les^ than ten times. 
He first mentions him (c. i. 19.) precisely as St. Matthew
had firet done (e. iv. 21.) ; James the son of Zebedee and
John his brother. He next mentions them both by name
only, ver. 29. of the same chapter ; with James and John.
 In enumerating the Apostles (c. in. 17) he speaks
of them as he had first done ; only, instead of John his
brother, he says John the brother of James. C. v. 37. he
Jays aside the distinction so^is of Zebedee; and he de-

[ 91 ]
who preceded. — And that such proof was satisT
factorily made out, was, I believe, at first ad-
scribes them James and John the brother of James. 
This is all previous to his account of the death of the
Baptist; which is related c. vi, 17 — 29,-^  In c. is. ver.
2, which Dr. Townson refers to as an instance of Mark
" calling tiie Apostie only John,'' he is, I should say,
fiilly and clearly distinguished as the Apostie, his name
jbeing so immediately subjoined to those of Peter and Jus
brother ; Peter and James and John. In ver. 38. of this
chapter, (which is the only instance,) he is really men
tioned singly, and by his name only ; and John answered
him, saying. What John said, indeed, indicates it to have
been the speech of an Apostie, or principal Disciple ; we
forbad him because he followed rtot us.  This passage,
I think, should have been referred to, rather than ver. 2. ;
at least it shonld have been joined to it.  This would
have been so fer correct.  Dr. Tovntison, however, I
must say, is not correct in stating that Mark, " as soon as
he has related the death of the Baptist, changes his
style, and calls him only John.' In, c. x, ver. 35. James
and John are spoken of under their primary distinguishing
denomination, James and John the sons of Zebedee : in
yer. 41,, indeed, they are spoken of only by their name;
where we are told the ten were much displeased with James
and John : but in this instance the connection with, and
reference to their preceding distinguishing denomination,
as sores of Zebedee, are close and obvious.  John is
mentioned in two other places by St. Mark, viz. c. xiu. 3.
xiv. 33 ; but in both instances his name is immediately

[ 92 ]
mitted by many persons,  This m&y
be collected fi'om the opposite opinion of a very
subjoined to that of James, so as most fully to indicate
him to have been John the Apostle ; even if no aecount
had been previously given of the death of the Baptist,
 St. Luke, like St. Mark, never
speaks of St. John singly, but once ; and that upon the
same occasion, and in the same manner (c. ix. 49.) And
John answered and said, &c.  In first speaking of him
jointly with liis brother, he terms them (c. v. 10.) James
and John the sons of Zebedee.  In two instances (c.
vi. 14. viii. 51.), previous to his noticing (c. ix. 9.) the
death of John the Baptist, he speaks of John without
this distinguishing characterisation ; but, upon each occa.:
sion, he joins him with his brother, and, in the second
instance, with Peter also. In the fornier instance he is
enumerating the Apostles ; and in both instances he indi
cates him unquestionably to have been John the Apostie.
 In c. ix, having first noticed the Death of the Bapr
tist, he mentions James and John together in twa places
(ver. 28. 54.).  In the first of these instances, one va
riation of his usual mode is noticeable ; he speaks of John
before James : in the second, he puts James as usual first ;
where also he characterises them as his (Christ's) Dis
ciples.  He once also speaks of John jointiy with Peter
(c. xxii. 8.) ; thus indicating him to have been Jolin the
Apostle.  These are aU the places in which Luke speaks
of St. John.  1 am duly aware of the uninteresting ter
diousness, and, apparentiy, unimportant minuteness of
these investigations : but, when such httie circumstances

[ 93 ]
learned and judicious Prelate, — a truly able
and impartial judge of the question at issue,
in a record are brought fonvard as evidences of the date
of the record, such evidence ought to be stated with the
most accurate coiTectness ; and, in enquiring whether this
has really been done, it is impossible to be too minute.  ¦
I reaUy think Dr. Townson's aig-ument, on this particular
head, has no ground whatever to rest upon ; and 1 could
not ventm-e to say so, without laying before the Reader
my proofe in detail.  1 see no material difference be
tween Matthew's manner of speaking of St. John, and
that of the two other Evangelists. 1 might add, iiis dis
tinction is more that of James than of John ; and his
primary object appeals to have been to distinguish James
the son of Zebedee and brother of John, from James the
son of Alphaeus, 
Sixthly;, Because " Matthew has omitted to relate, that
James and John wished to command fire from Heaven, to
consume the Samaritan VUlage that would not receive our
Lord ; which is recorded by St. Luke, c. ix. 54.  The
first step towards the enlargement of the Cliurch, beyond
the people of the Jews, was the conversion of the Sama
ritans ; for whose confirmation in the Faith the Aposties
sent Peter and John. But, had these new converts soon
after been told that John had not long before expressed
such a wish, the knowledge of the fact, while their faith
was in an infant and feeble state, might have ahenated
their minds from him that was now their spiritual Father.
Here then St, Matthew acted as prudence required of one
who wrote near the time of their conversion : he left the

[ 94 ] ¦
(having no hypothesis of his own to serve,) — •
who thinks that both Dr. Owen and Dn
offence of St. John, and the heavenly rebuke, which it
received, to be recorded by a future Evangelist."  ¦ ,
I am here tempted to say, that had this argument, of a " pm-
dent" temporizing Gospel, been advanced by any young
man httie known, and of unestabUshed reputation, — for
instance, by James Mackniglit, M. A. in the first edition
of liis Harmony, — 1 suspect it would scarcely have been
deemed to require any serious ansWer.  But, in coming
from Dr. Townson, it comes from high authority.  ^
Here then, it may be answered, that the confirmation of
Samaria took place about two years after the Ascension ;
but it does not appear that the Gospel of St. Matthevv was
supposed by Dr. Townson to have been ivritten and pub
lished tUl two or three years after that ; in wliich time,
according to the rapidity with which Christianity advanced
wherever it was received, the Church of Samaria must
have been so fuUy estabhslied, as to have been littie af
fected by the record of this fact.-^^ — But supposing it was
only a year after, or less, — the idea of a converted and con
firmed Church, which had even received the Holy Ghost,
being thus offended at the zeal, however unwarrantable, of
a Disciple who had not then received the Holy Ghost, is, in
my judgment, a most extraordinai-y stretch of imagina
tion.  — For my own part, I must say; the r-ecord
of St. Luke and silence of St. Matthew, in this instance,
strongly confirm the Hypothesis of Luke being the earher
vyriter. The offence of these impetuous zealots, and the
heavenly rebuke they received (ver. 55.), together with

[ 95 ]
Towiison completely fail in their supposed
proofs.  " Two learned men," says
our blessed Lord's declaration of the mercifuUy gracious
purposes of his Gospel (ver. 56.), were aU fully recorded
by the first Evangelist.  Matthew, a secondary writer,
forbore to repeat a feet, to which he had nothing to add,
 Had Luke omitted either the rebuke, or the declara
tion, St. Matthew would, probably, have again recorded
the fact for the purpose of inserting what Luke had
omitted.  Such appears to me to have been Mat
thew's manner. 
Seventhly, Because " Matthew, in speaking of Herod
Antipas, is less severe than St. Mark or St. Luke ; and, in
particular, takes no notice of the insults offered by him
to our Lord on the morning of the Cnicifixion. 
The most obvious account of tliis conduct in St. Matthew
is, that Herod was stiU reigning in Galilee ; and he was
unwilling to display more than was absolutely necessary
of the bad part of his character, that he might neither
excite jealousy in Herod of his beheving subjects, nor
disaffection in them to their sovereign : in which case he
must have written before the year of our Lord 39 ; for in
that year Herod was deposed." — i  ¦! cannot but
consider this as a strong proof of Luke's having been the
earhest wiiter. I answer, as on the former head ; " Luke'
had fuUy recorded the fact, and Matthew had nothing
to add to it," Mere repetition of fact, I beheve, Matthew
veiy seldom has, 
Eighthly, Because " Matthew calls Herod the Great sim
ply (c. ii. 1.) Herod the King, whUe Luke calls him (c. i. 5.>

[ 96 ]
the Bishop of Lincoln, in his justly popular
Elements of Theology, designed for the use
the King of Judcea: which shews that Matthew wTote early,
before Herod Agiippa was advanced to a kingdom, being
fiist made King of PliiUp's Tetrarchy by CaUgula, and
afterwards King of Judaea by Claudius : — which shevvs
tiiat Matthew wrote before 37, when Herod Agiippa was
first made King of a Jewish territory."  But the fact
is, St. Matthevi', if not expressly, by the most direct indi
cation, so as to be tantamount, describes Herod the Great
as King, of Judaea.  Now when Jesus was born in Beth
lehem of JudcEa, in the days of Herod the King, i. e. cer
tainly "the King of Judaea," in tiie country just men
tioned, — EV B«OX£E|x TjTff la^aiaj, £v r/yx£paij Hpwds ts Bctci-
?i£a»r.  Compare Acts xui. 1. ~Ho-av Je tj»e; ev AvTio;)^Eia,
Kara, rm aaa^ tKuXTio-iav 'urfo^-nrat JCCt* dtdaaKaXot, — where
there is an ellipsis of exei, — viz, xara. rm (exei) so-av iKK^n-
0-iav, Now there were certain men at Antioch, prophets and
teachers in the Church there, 
Ninthly, Because " St, Matthew uses the word Governor
(r.yi^m), in his xxviith Chapter, so repeatedly for Pilate,"
' But to this I have spoken already. See note, p. 24.
supra.  ^  • 
Tenthly, Because " St, Matthew is so littie distinct and
particular in reciting our Lord's miracles; giving, in a
certain masterly way, only the essential circumstances ;
aiid judging that the notoriety of these recent miracles, at
the early period when he (Matthew) wrote, did not require
a minute description,"  Also, because " St, Matthew
does not mention the Ascension : whereas, if he had not

[ 97 ]
of young students in Divinity, " Dr. Owen
and Dr. Townson, from a collation of St. Mat
thew's and St. Mark's Gospels, have pointed
out the use of the same words and expressions
in so many instances, that it has been supposed
St. Mark wrote with St. Matthew's Gospel be
fore him : but I must ownthat the similarity does
not appear to me strong enough to warrant
such a conclusion ; it seems no more than
might have arisen from other causes. St. Pe
ter would naturally recite in his preaching the
written whUe tiie Ascension was fresh in memory, and the
spectators of it continued together at Jerusalem, he could
scarce have faded to mention it."  1 should say, the
first of these arguments positively indicates St. Matthew to
have been a secondary Writer ; this " masterly way of re
citing essentials" being, in truth, abridging weU known
accounts of recorded facts : and as to Matthew's sUence
respecting the Ascension, I shaU only observe, at present,
that, if the zeal and patient perseverance of Dr. Townson,
(for he was six years at least in preparing his Discourses,
and communicated much on the material points in ques
tion with learned and judicious friends,) could not suggest
a more satisfactory answer to the Nodus, I really think Dr,
Macknight's argument from it, (which I HeUeve is per
fectly his own,) must be deemed irrefragable and conclu-
.sive, whUe it furnishes the only unobjectionable w^y of
solving the difficulty, H

[ 9S ]
featoe events and discourses which Matthe#
jrecorded in his Gospel ; and the same circumJ»
st«ne€!s might be mentioned in the same man
lier by men who sought not after " excellency
bf speech," but whose minds retained thtf
remembrance of facts or conversations which
strongly impressed them, even without taking
into consideration the idea of supernatural
guidance." Vol. I. p. 315. ed. 1800 *. 
* In speaking of St, Luke's Gospel, his Lordship also
observes; " The two learned Authors, mentioned at the end'
of the last Chapter, have compared many paraUel 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 ap
pear to me that there is asufficient similarity of expression to
justify either of these conclusions." p. 319.~He adds; "There
i*as among the antients a difference of opinion concerning
the priority of these two Gospels ; and it mnst be acknow
ledged to tfe a very doubtful point. Upon the whole, I am in-
dined to think that St. Lnke wrote before St. Mark, &c. &c,"
— — i?he phaehothenon of similarity, in so many passages of
the three first Gospels, has been accounted for by Dr, Mac
knight, in his I'ruth of the Gospel History, in &
inanner, I am tetapted to say, sufficientiy satisfactory ; and
so as to preclude, not only tiie idea of copying, but, the ne
cessity of recurring to any " common source,"' besides the
preaching of our Lord himself during his ministry, and of
his chief Apostles for the time that intervened between his

[ 99 ]•
The hypothesis of one Evangelist copying
from another, I believe, begins much to
Ascension and the Mrs. of the first written Gospel, 
" It is certain," says Di', Macknight, " that, on the supposi
tion our Lord preached and wrought miracles pubhcly in
Judea for several years, many thousands of people must
have been eye and ear-witnesses of What he said and did.
Accordingly the Gospels infoi-m us, that there were twelve
persons called Aposties, who constantiy attended him in
aU his jxjurneys ;" that there were other seventy also, who
were frequently with him, and had the honour of a special
commission from him to go before him and preach in the
towns and vUlages whither he was to come. That, besides
these, there were many who, beheving on him, heard hiin
¦occasionaUy, and were witnesses of his miracles. And,
particularly that there were upwards of five hundred bre
thren, who saw him and conversed with him after his resur
rection, AU these, on account of his august character as
the Son of God and Saviour of the world, marked with the
utmost veneration the words vphich he spake, and the ac
tions which he performed, treasuring them up in their
memories with care. Being thus qualified for tiie oflice,
they regarded it both as the principal business of their
hfe, and as their greatest honour, to go forth after his
ascension, and publish to mankind the things which they
h^ heard and seen. For this purpose they traveUe'l^through
the world, and wherever they came they gathered multitude?
about them, to whom they told or preached the history
of tlieir master. It is evident, therefore, that many hundred
thousands of people must have received a particular and
H 2

[ 106 ]
to lose ground ; and, I incline to think, it standi
£t chance of being entirely discarded. 
exact account of the life, the doctrine, and the miracles of
the author of the Christian religion, from the mouth of
persons who, having been his attendants, had seen his mi
racles, and heard his sermons; and that, before any history
of his life was pubfished in writing. The effect of this di-
hgehce v/as, thaf numbers in every country believed tlie
Gospel, and formed themselves into societies caUed churches,
under the direction of those who had been the instruments
of their conversion. Moreover, as the belief of the history
of Jesus was what distinguished his disciples from the
rest of mankind, it camiot be doubted that in the eai-hest
ages, when by their profession of Christianity they renounced
the world with aU ita pleasures, and exposed themselves to
every kind of suffering, they made it the principal subject
of their discourses in the pubhc assemblies, and of their
conversations in private meetings, to rehearse to one ano
ther what the eye-witnesses had told them concerning their
master, and to make observations upon his sermons, para
bles, conversations, and miracles. This, indeed, was the
more necessary, as they had not then any written accounts
of their master, upon which they could entirely depend.
The truth is, conversations about their master were so
much the business and delist of the first Christians, that
we mayj' ^Ueve thers was not among them a single person
arrived at any degree of age or considei-ation, who had not
heard all the important articles of our Lord's history re
peated perhaps above a thousand times. And therefore
tiiey must aU of them have been peifectiy weU acquainte4

[ 101 ]
Eichorn, in his " Dissertation, on the On-
gin of our Three First Gospels," printed in
1794, (as Mr. Marsh observes,) " has used
very strong arguments in favour of this posi
tion, that the succeeding Evangelists did not
use the Gospels of the preceding." And " his
Pupils, Halfeld and Russwurm," (as is subjoined
in a note,) " have both argued well on the same
question."-^ — Origin of the Three First
Gospels, c. v. — p. 198, 199. Marsh's Mi
chaelis, vol. III. part II.  Mr. Marsh had
before observed (c. iv. p. 1 84.) ; " The prin
ciple, that the succeeding Evangelists copied
from the preceding, is liable to" objections,
which it is not very easy to surmount.  —i-
withhis history; perhaps more fuUy than we can be, who
in this remote age draw our knowledge of Jesus from the
short commentaries of the Evangelists, wherein are re
corded not the hundredth part perhaps of his sermons and
miracles, Tliis circumstance deserves the rather to be
taken notice of, as it shows clearly how four different his
torians giving an account of our Lord's transactions, espe
ciaUy his sermons, have happened to dehver them almost
precisely in the same words. They were the only interest
ing subjects of conversation among Christians, To re
member the words of the Lord Jesus, and to meditate upon
them, was the great business of his foUowers," p. 483.

[ 102 ]
The Question, " whether any of the flrst three
Evangelists had seen the Gospels of the others,
before he Wrote," had before been fiilly dis
cussed by Dr. Lardner, in the first volume
of the Supplement to his Credibility &c.,
first published in 1756: but his powerful
arguments, in proof of the negative, seem
for some time to have "hidden their di-
njinished heads," and actually to have merged
in the splendour of reputation and popu-.
larity, which accompanied the two publi
cations of Dr. Owen and Dr. Townson. — '
That this should be so, may be matter of sur
prise to those who, recurring to his Work,
find Dr. Lardner thus ably arguing : " It is
not suitable to the character of any of the
Evangelists, that they should abridge, or tran
scribe another Historian.  St. Matthew
was an Apostle, and eye-witness : conse
quently, he was E^ble to write of his own know
ledge. Or, if there were any parts of our
Lord's ministry, at which he was not present,
he might obtain information from his fellow-
Apostles, or other eye-witnesses. And as for
other things, which happened before the Apos-:
ties were called to follow him, concerning hia

[ 103 ]
Nativity, Infancy, and Youth; these, as St.
Augustine says, they might know from Christ
himself, or from his parents, or from his friends
and acquaintance, who were to be depended
upon.  >  — • St. Mark, if he was
not one of Christ's Seventy Disciples, was an
«arly Jewish Believer, acquainted with all the
Apostles, (with Peter in particular,) and with
many other eye-witnesses ; consequently, well
qualified to write a Gospel.  ^  St.
Luke, if he was not one of Christ's Seventy
Disciples, nor an Eye-witness, was a Disciple,
and Companion of Apostles, especially of
Paul; and he must therefore have been well
qualified to write a Gospel. Moreover, as has
been shown, it is manifest from his introduction, .
that he knew not of any authentic history of
Jesus Christ, that had been yet written. And
fee expressly says of himsejf, that he had per
fect understanding of all things from the veiy
first, and he professeth to write of them to
Theophilus in order. After all this, to say
that he transcribed many things from one his
torian, and yet more from another, so far as
I am able to judge, is no less than a contradic
tion of the Evangelist himself," Lardner's

T 104 ]
works, vol. vi. p. 22'/.-  In conclusion,
he says : " I have insisted the more on this
point, because I think, that to say the Evan
gelists abridged and transcribed each other,
without giving any hint of their so doing, is a
great disparagement to them ; and it likewise dir
minisheth the value and importance of their tes-r
timony.  This is not a new opinion, lately
thought of; nor has it been taken up by me,
out of opposition to any. I have all my days
read, and admired the first three Evangelists,
as independent, harmonious witnesses. And I
know not how to forbear ranking the other
opinion among those bold, as well as groundless
assertions, in which Critics too often indulge
themselves, without considering the conse
quences." — p. 233.  Lardner con
tends for the Negative of the Question, under
seven different heads, or arguments. In six of
these, I cordially agree with him. But I cannot
do so in his third head, the general purpose of
which is to prove, that "the nature and design of
the first three Gospels manifestly show, that the
Evangelists had not seen any authentic written
history of Jesus Christ -."where, he takes occasion
to say, that " they (the Evangelists) did not

I 105 1
know of each other's writings." p. 22g, 
Surely this is going too far; nor is it supported
by Argument,  On this point, I readily
accede to, and would somewhat extend the
observation of Augustine, that " While all the
Evangelists respectively had an order (and man
ner) of narration peculiarly tlieir own,"' (and by
no means abridged, or transcribed the writings
of the others,) " still it cannot be proved that
each of them formed his resolution of writing
a Gospel, under a total ignorance of any pre
ceding writer *," i. e, under an impression, or
supposition that no one had before, in any
respect, .entered upon the same office,  I
should be as unwilling, as Dr. Lardner himself,
to admit, that any one of the Evangelists bor
rowed from, transcribed, or abridged the wri
tings of his Predecessor. I can well suppose them,
most probably, never to have read, certainly
never to have minutely examined the writings
of each other, with a view to the composition
of their own Gospels. — Indeed, for what pur-
* " Quamvis singuh (Evangelistae) suum quendam nar-
randi ordinem tenuisse videantur, non tamen unusquisque
eorum velut alterius praecedentis ignanis voluisse scribere
reperitur,"-  De Cons. Evangelist. L. i. C. 1.

[ 105 ]
|}Gse should they do it } The very idea is de
rogatory to the Character of an Inspired Wri
ter. — But shall we venture to say, that " each
and every one of them was totally ignorant of
his having any Predecessor in the office of an
Evangelist ?" — I see no good attained by mak
ing out the proof; could it be done. This,
however, I presume it cannot be * ; — and, in
this ease, some intermediate point between
total ignorance of any predecessor, on the one
hand, and a servile copying and appropriation
©f materials from his writings, on the other,
is the position -f, which I would contend for,
* It is sufficient to say with Eichorn, that '' the succeed
ing Evangelists did not use the Gospels of the preceding."
"t I must observe, that the knowledge, which I would sup
pose one Evangelist to have desired, and to have had, of a
Predecessor's Gospel, did not comprehend minute informa
tion respecting the exact particulars of each fact, as nar
rated by himj but was hmited to the extent, aijd
general contents of his Gospel, with respect to the
facts, or discourses, which it recorded. It was hmited
to the quid and the quantum ; and did not look to the quo-
moda. So much information, respecting the writings of
any prior Evangelist, I conceive any well-informed Evan
gelist, although an actual AvTOTrrns, and even a Cliief Apos»

[ 107 ]
as the most probable, defensible, and accepta
ble, — It is, indeed, a requisite postulatum,
previous to the admission of the greater part of
Macknight's Arguments for the Hypothesis of
St. Luke's being the earliest writer of a Gospel:
and, on this account, I find it necessary to
claim it.  If no greater difficulty oc
curs, that Hypothesis, (to the admission
of which I see no material objection,
from all my preceding enquiries and considera
tions,) I really think, may well stand: as, I
presume, this point would be readily ceded to
me. — I may take occasion fiirther to consider
the Arguments of Dr. Lardner in this respect ;
but, at this immediate moment, I venture to
assume this " general knowledge of an earlier
Evangelist's Writings, by a later Evangelist ;"
as, on this groundj I wish to offer some
tie, might well desire to possess, previous to his awa.
vniting,— that he might be aware, not only, what was
comprehended m his Predecessor's account, but, also, what
was there omitted : so that he himself might omit, if he
judged it expedient, what was there recorded, or repeat it,
in liis own manner, if it suited his purpose, and that he
might fuUy supply whatever principal facts, or discourses,
were there omitted, and, although highly important, re
mained yet unrecorded.

[ 10^ ] '
fidditional arguments, in support of the Hypo
thesis of Dr. Macknight, which have forced
themselves on my mind, in the course of my
examining and arranging the opinions and argu
ments of others on this point,  ^
I could not but fancy, that a fair and free Com
parison of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St.
Luke, — considered as mere uninspired, pro-
phane histories, or biographical Memoirs of
a highly celebrated Pliilosopher, by two of
his Scholars, — observing what internal indica
tions each respectively bears of prior or poste
rior writing, — might enaV.e us reasonably to
judge, which of the two has really the best
claim to rank as " the earliest writer." 
I have been led to make the experiment accor
dingly.  On comparing, (somewhat cur
sorily,) these two Gospels, — looking more
particularly to their commencement and con
clusion, — I, thus, in general terms' state the
CASE between theqi : presuming, that, if my
premises are correct, the conclusions, which I
draw from them, will fairly follow,-  ¦¦  • 

 ^.  Two antient wj-iters,
L. and M, have, each, left Memoirs of an
eminent (and commonly supposed Divine)

I' m ]
Teacher ; but whom they both survived many
years. These Memoirs contain an historical
liarration of interesting Facts : and a record of
certain important, preceptive, and doctrinal
Discourses, connected with the historical Facts;
and deriving their authority from them. — '
The obvious purpose of the Memoirs is to as
sure us of the truth of the Facts ; thereby to
establish the Authority of the Doctrines.  >
There is no external evidence, that can at all
be relied upon, which of these two Memoria
lists was the earliest writer. — The Memoirs by
M. have commonly had the precedence ; but
this might well be from his being* a man of a
superior rank. The solution of the question
must depend on the internal evidence of their
respective Memoirs.  Those of L. are
the most extensive in point of time, beginning
previous to the birth of the Teacher, and com
prehending two most interesting and important
events consequent to his death, while those of
M. commence barely with the circumstances of
the birth, (which are referred to, rather than
narrated,) and include only one of those two
interesting events, consequent to the death ;
but with some few additional circumstances

[ no ]
relating to that particular event. — Now, this
larger extension of time, and more ample com
prehension of events, has been commonly
thade an argument for L's being the later
writer ; and it has been supposed, that he, as
such, supplied the things omitted by M.  »
But there is the best reason to believe, that
most of the things, which L, has exclusively
recorded, were perfectly known to M ; and
that he knew them to be material to the pur
pose of his Memoirs. — How, therefore, came
he to omit them ? -^  In his history of the
Birth and Infancy, L. has given us a number
of minute, but most important and highly
interesting circumstances, all of which are
indispensably necessary to the purpose of the
Memoirs ; but all of which are entirely omitted
by M : who, in their place, gives Us three or
four circumstances, (respecting the birth and
infancy,) which are entirely omitted by L ;
¦which circumstances are certainly interesting
and important, but, compared with those
recorded by L, (we must say,) are of a secon
dary and less important kind.  The cir
cumstances recorded by L. are indispensable ;
and, (though perfected, and rendered beauti-

[ Hi ]
fully complete, by those of M,) W6uld, by*
themselves, have sufficed for the purpose of
the Memoirs. — The few circumstances of tlie
birth and infancy, exclusively recorded by M>
might have been dispensed with, while we have
those of L ; but, taken alone, would not be
held sufficient for the intended purpose, with
a view to which they are produced.  ¦¦ 
-^  Must I not then say, that L, as being the

itiost extensive and completely comprehensive
writer, appears, from the internal evidence (of
this part especially) of their respective Me
moirs, to have been the earliest writer;
while M, in supplying some few additional
circumstances, interesting indeed and impor
tant, but not indispensably necessary to be re
corded, announces himself a SUBSEauENT wri
ter, acquainted with the contents of his Pre
decessor's Memoirs, — resting in a certain de
gree upon them, and modelling bis own accor
dingly ? —  — "  But this M
not all. •—  ^These Memoirs, (as it has been
before observed,) consist of Facts and Doctrines.
— The authority of the latter rests on the
certainty of the former, — L's Memoirs con
sist of both in a feir abundance ;-— but with

[ 112 ]
a seeming studious care to bring forward, cir-'
cumstantially, and distinctly, every Fact, —
giving the Doctrines, as they find their place,
in connection with the Facts, — and certainly
not making the Doctrines his principal object,
which the Facts may rather be said to be. 
The Memoirs of M, in the mean time, must be
allowed to abound, proportionately, more in
Doctrines ; and where his Facts are the same
as those of L, they are often in point of cir
cumstances evidently compressed, * while some-
* That St. Matthew was habitually compressive of Facts,
while the Doctrines were his great object, — has been ob
served by Dr. Townson. " St. Matthew, in a certain masterly
way gives the essential circumstances of oui- Lord's miracles ;
but he is the least distinct and particular in reciting them.
He vvas in haste, as was before observed, to introduce Christ
SPEAKING,"  Disc. iv. Sect. iii. §. 10. — He had before
observed, on comparing Mat. xi. 'i — 11. with Luke, viii.
19 — 9,8, (Disc. iii. Sect. iii. §.2.) with a view to Matthew's
omission of What is related ver. 21. of St. Luke, " St Mat
tiiew, who, as usually, hastens on to tiie discourse of Clirist,
only intimates in these words. Go your way, and tell John
what things ye do hear and see, that our Lord at that time
did many miracles. Tliis St. Luke declares in express
tenns." — And in that same hour he cured many of their
infirmities, and plagues, and of evil spirits, and unto many
that were blind he gave sight. Luke, \ii. 31,

[ 113 ] .
thing of new matter, doctrinal or preceptive,
is often brought forward with them ; or the
doctrinal and preceptive part, before given by
L, is enlarged or dilated, in the Memoirs of
M.  Indeed, in the great body of the Me-
moirs> what M. has exclusive of L. consists
principally of Discourses and Doctrines, or of
Facts, not materially tending generally to
establish all the Doctrines, but including,
or leading to some Doctrines immediately
combined with those particular Facts. — L's
primary object appears to be the Facts, upon
which the authority of the Doctrines rests ;
while the more immediate object of M. may
fairly be stated to be the Doctrines. — ^ 
Now, on the principle that a foundation is
prior to a superstructure, I cannot but consi
der L, thus minutely attentive to these most
important Facts on which the Doctrines rest,
as indicating himself to be the Earliest
Writer ; and I consider M, thus exuberant in
Doctrines, while sparing and compressive in
Facts, as a Subseq.uent Writer, trusting in
a certain degree to the foundation so amply laid
by L. the previous writer ; whose foundation,
however, he has, in some few instances, if tiot
I

I 114 ]
Materially strengthened, at least embellished
and perfected.- — 
I confess the comparison of the two Gospels,
in this point of view, has with me great
weight ; and, I really think, combined with
the Arguments of Macknight, for the Prio
rity OF St. Luke's Gospel, from " the beau
tiful Propriety with which it makes the
Gospels appear," it may go near to produce
fcoriviction.  His concluding Argument,
I am tempted to say, might alone suffice for
that purpose. It remains unanswered, and, I
incline to think, unanswerable. — The cir
cumstance of Matthew's having omitted to
give any account of so important a fact * as the
* That great, concluding Event of the Gospel History,
our blessed Lord's Ascensioh into Heaven, is a most impor
tant feet, highly necessary to be recorded in completing the
Historic Proofs, that Jesus Christ was the true Messiah ;
for it was not only foretold by the Prophets, but also typi
fied under the ceremonial Law. (See Pearson on the
Creed, p, 369, 270.) — It was also referred to prophetically
by our Lord himself, in several other places, besides that
noticed by Dr. Macknight. See John, vi. 62. xiv. S. xvi.
7, 10. XX. 17. — It has been well termed, " that great and
important event, which constitutes the concluding period,
and confirmation of the whole wonderful narrative of the

[ 115 3
Ascension, appears perfectly inexplicable on
any principle, but that of " St. Luke's having
before recorded it ;" and I am the more con
firmed in this, by the absolute tenuity of
Argument, with which the truly learned and
amiable writer, to whom I have before referred,
has attempted to solve this nodus, on other
principles ; from a wish to reconcile the inter
nal evidence, of the Gospels themselves, with
the supposed Testimony of the Fathers, that
" the Four Gospels were actually written in the
order in which they now commonly stand." —
" St. Matthew," says Dr. Townson, " makes
no direct mention of the Ascension. He had
deduced his history to the time, when Christ,
who died for our sins, was risen again for our
justification, and, being invested vnth all
power in heaven and earth, commanded his
Christian History; and the authenticity of which may,
and indeed must be considered, as the basis of the Christian
system : for, if the story of Christ's Ascension be a fable,
it win be diiiicult to look upon Christianity as any thing else
than an imposture: but, onthe contrary, if its authenticity
be admitted, the divine authority ofthe Christian Revelation
must be acknowledged," Bigland's Reflections on the
Resusrection AND Ascension of Christ, &c, IS03. pp.
10, 11.
I 2

[ lie 1
disciples to teach all nations, and assured theta:'
of his presence with them to the end of the
world. Here he thought proper to close his
Gospel. But if he had not written while the
Ascension was fresh in memory, and the
spectators of it continued together at Jerusalem,.
he could scarce have failed to notice it."- 
What ? — Was it possible that an Apostle-
Evangelist, committing to writing, first of all
the Evangelists, (as the Hypothesis supposes,.)
the important facts of the Gospel History, on
the certainty of which, and their fully accom
plishing all the prophecies respecting the Mes
siah, was actually to rest the great Doctrine of
" Redemption thrbtigh a Saviour who is Christ
the Lord," — was it possible that such an unques
tionably inspired writer, on so important an oc
casion, should conceive of his Gospel, that it
was a mere temporary work, ' Junius annij ; to
be studiously adapted to and governed by the
circumstances of the present time, looking no
further ; anrf the contents of which were to be
regulated by what was, or what was not, " fresh
in the memory ?" Shall I not rather suppose, that
he musthave been fiilly aware, (withthe humblest
sense of himself, and his own instrumentality,)

[ 117 ]
that the eminently important Facts and Divinp
Doctrines, which it was his appointed office to
record, were certainly destined . for every
age, and generation of Christians ; even till
the glorious consummation of that All-Graci
ous Dispensation, to a certain record of which
his Pen was to give, under Divine Superinten
dence, the permanent form of an indelible Mo
nument * ? — I wish the truly candid, and
purely pious mind of the learned and amiable
writer, whose acuteness in this instance I re
gret to have been diverted from the immediate
point in question by previous opinions assumed
under the best of principles, could have recon
sidered his own argument, in this point of view,
 The Ascension of our Blessed Lord, that
consummatory completion of his Ministry, is,
1 must ever contend, a material and indispen-
* While we consider St, Matthew, as addressing his Gos
pel more particularly to the Jews, especially in so .studi
ously shoviing the exact completion of their antient Pro
phecies relatuig to the Messiah in the person and actions of
Jesus Christ j who shall say, that he did not look forward to
the instrumentaUty of his own particular Gospel, in idti^
mately converting the whole nation, at the great comiko
IN of aU pe(q)le ?

C 118 ]
sable part of " a Gospel, or History of what
Jesus Christ both did and taught upon Earth,
until the day in which he was taken up to
Heaven." — This is Lardner's description of
a Gospel, borrowed, as he says, from St. Luke :
but when he proceeds to give in detail " the
integrals" or requisite constituent articles, " of
a Gospel," his account of them terminates, (I
would say, very abruptly,) with our Lord's
" commission to his Apostles, to preach the
Gospel in all the world, and to all sorts of per
sons therein." Surely he must have been aware,
that the conjunction " until" (until the day)
is here unquestionably inclusive; in which
sense, we have abundant classical and scriptural
authority for its use*. St. Luke, indeed,
* A;^fii «; MfiEpaf , — Hoogeveen observes respecting A;;(;pi
followed by a genitive case, " Terminus qui Genitivo ex-
primitur, vel includitur vel excluditur, Includitur De-
mosth. Phihp, iu, Ovru xaxwf diaxE»pE6a — wr' o^XP* '^*'5 TwjutEpoi'
MjitEfW? sJe» 8TE rm (TUjU^EfovTOV, ST! Tttfv Jeovtwv ta^oc^au Junot^sOos,
— Eo calamitatis pervenimus, ut ad hodiemum usque diem
facere non possimus, quod rerum nostrarum ratio aut officlum
pQstulat. Ubi dies hodiernus includitur. Sic 2, Cor, iii,
14," p, 126. I add another instance from Xenophon. Tm
Si rsuna, rojalavTi'*, ax?'S ^ ^^^ ^ Xoyoj syja^sTo, TKri^vo.; wject-

[ 119 1
himself, by recording in his Gospel our Lord's
Ascension, and the circumstance of his blessing
his Disciples, at the immediate moment when
he ivas parted from them and carried up into
Heaven, positively shows us, that his words
until the day, Acts i. 2., where he is speaking
of the extent of his own Gospel, actually in
clude the events of that day.  -Dr. Lard
ner's omission of the Ascension seems the
more extraordinary, as he had before in^
eluded it among the requisite facts, on the cer
tainty of which the truth of Christianity rests.
Speaking of what is said by Jerome, " that.
Luke did not learn his Gospel from the Apostle
Paul only, but also from other Apostles," and
having observed, that he " always considers
Qurccroq m tuv a^A<fm T»i» af^Jiv ei;^e. Cseterum natu maximua
Tisiphonus imperium ad hoc usque tempus, quo historiae
liber hie scribebatur, obtinebat. 'EA^tiwxa, L. vi. c. iv. s.
37.  In this inclusive sense it must also be un
derstood Mat. xxiv. 33, and Luke, xvii. 27. "XS' ^5 tiftEf*;
ncrrixBENiu! si; rm xtSwrov. Where Montanus translates thep^n.
sage, not in diem" till the day," but, usque quo die, even on
or during the day, in which Noah entered into the ark. And
he has thus translated the passage in question. Acts, i,
2, qiiffi capit Jesus facere el docere, usque quadi^-
receptvs est,

[ 120 ]
I'aul as an eye-witness, (though) not from the
beginning," he proceeds to say ; " He must
have had a distinct knowledge of all things
concerning the Lord Jesus. Christianity, as
has been often and justly said, is founded in
facts. In order to preach it, Paul must have
had a knowledge of Christ's life, preaching,
miracles, » death, resurrection, and ascension."
— VOL. VI. p. 127.  Consistency, therefore,
seems to have required, that, in his later de
tail of the constituent integrals of an entire
Gospel, he should not have failed to include the
Ascension. — The introduction of it would,
indeed, have been incompatible with the Ar
gument, (such as it is,) from which he deduces
the conclusion, to which I before (p. 105.) spe
cifically objected, that " the three first Evange
lists DID NOT know of each other's writing." —
To that Argument I now beg to speak ; and I
cannot but say, that it is, really, in my judgment,
defective in its premises, unwarrantable in its
conclusion, and every way erroneous. — I sub
join it in a note below * ; and I proceed to
* " I say, that the writings of aU and each one of these
three Evangelists contain an entire Gospel, or a com
plete history of the ministry of Jesus Christ: or, to

[ 121 ]
offer, as briefly as possible, my objections to it
— I would first observe, that " an entire Gos-
borrow St. Luke's expressions. Acts i. 1, 2, a history of all
that Jesus both did and taught, until the day, in the which he
was taken up to heaven. For in all and eveiy one of them is
the history of our Lord's fore-runner, his baptism, preach
ing and death, and of our Lord's being baptized by him ;
when, by a voice fi-om heaven, he was proclaimed to be
the Messiah. Then follows our Lord's temptation in the
wilderness. After which is an account of our Lord's
preaching, and his beginning to gatiier disciples, the
choice of the twelve Aposties, and then names ; and our
Lord's going over the land of Israel, preaching the
doctrine of the kingdom, attended by his twelve Aposties,
in synagogues, and in cities and villages, working aU kinds
of healing and saving miracles, upon all sorts of persons, in
all places, in the presence of multitudes, and before Scribes
and Pharisees, as well as others. A particular mission of
xhis Aposties, in the land of Israel. Our Lord's transfigura
tion on the mount, when there appeared Moses and Ehas
talking with him, and there came a voice from Heaven,
saying : This is my beloved Son. Hear him. His going
up to Jerusalem, and making a public entrance into the
city, then cleansing the Temple, where he often taught the
people, and preached the Gospel, and openly asserted his
authority and character : lus keeping the Passover with his
Disciples, and instituting a memorial of himself : his last
Bufferings and death, with the behaviour of Judas the

[ 122 }
pel," in my opinion, must be something more
than a history of the Ministry, Death, and
Resurrection of Jesus Christ. I say, it must
comprehend, on one haiid, at least the Incar-
traitOT, Peter, and the rest of the Disciples : his burial,
resnrrectioH, with the evidences of it, and the general
commission to his Apostles, to preach the Gospel in all the
world, and to aE sorts of persons therein. .  Here
are all the integrals of a Gospel. And they are properly
filled up. And all these things are in all and every one of
the first three Evangelists : which shows, that tiiey did not
know cf each other's writings. For it cannot be thought,
that they should be disposed to say the same things over
and over, or to repeat what had been well said ah'eady.
St, John, who had seen the other three Gospels, has httie
in comrnon with them : almost every thing in his Gospel
is new and additional. So it would have been vrith every
other writer in the like circumstances.  And if
St. Matthew's Gospel had been vnitten at about eight, or
fifteen, or twenty years after our Lord's ascension, and had
become generally known among the faitliful, (as it certainly
would, soon after it was written,) it is not improbable that
we should have hatj but two Gospels, his and St. John's ;
or if there had been several, they would all, except the first,
have been in the manner of supplements, hke St. John's,
not entire Gospels, Uke those of the first three Evan-
gelis'.s.' Lardner's Works J Vol. VI. pp. 228, 229.

[ 123 ]
nation, and Christ's being born at Bethlehem-
of Judsea ; and, on the other, it must extend
inclusively to the Ascension. — St. Luke de
scribes his own Gospel, as treating of all that
Jesus began to do and to teach, until the day
hi the which he was taken up : — Where, I
believe, the word began is certainly not a pleo
nastic Grzecism or Hebraism. — I know the
sense adopted by Lardner, (who supposes he
began to do merely equivalent to he did,) is the
sense most commonly favoured by Commenta
tors : but I think there is great weight in Dod
dridge's note on the place, and, on that ground
alone*, I should feel justified in contending
* I subjoin Doddridge's note. — " To begin to do a thing,
as Heinsius and many other Critics have observed, is a
common Greek idiom for doing, or undertaking a thing.
Compare Mat, xu. 1. with Luke vi. 1.; and Mark vi. 2. with
Matthew xui. 54. — See also Genes, iii, 3, Septuagint;
Numb. xxv. 15 ; Judg. xiii. 5. xx. 31 ; — and Luke iii. 8.
xxi. 28 ; and Acts ii. 4. Yet in most of these places it re
fers to some of the first actions or events of this kind. Ac
cordingly I apprehend with Chrysostom, that the phrase
here refers to the account which Luke had given of Christ's
Ministry, from tlie beginning and first rise of it (as he
speaks Luke i. 2, 3.) to the Ascension, vnth which he con
cludes his Gospel."  1 cannot, indeed, persuade
jnyselfj that ufJwTo ispleonastic when joined with ax?*- It

[ 124 ]
for the sense given in his paraphrase to began to
do and to teach, i. e. " from his first appear
ance on earth, to tbe last period of his abode
upon it ;" and as acknowledged by Chrysostom,
whom Doddridge cites, in his note, as observing,
that what is here said " refers to the account
which Luke had given of Christ's ministry,
from the beginning and first rise of it (as he
speaks Luke, i, 2, 3,) to the Ascension, with
which he concludes his Gospel." — Here then I
say, Lardner is perfectly incorrect in stating,
that " the writings of all and each of the three
first EAfangelists contain an entire Gospel or
complete history of the Ministry of Christ,
or, to borrow the expressions of St. Luke,
Acts. i. 1, 2., a history of all that Jesus both
did and taught, until the day, in the which he
was taken up into Heaven," — This, in fact,
is not St. Luke's correct expression : but
Were it so, the purport of the words, being
interpreted by St. Luke's own Gospel, cannot
seems to me to intend, or indicate, air afx»?; ax?' teXss, and
to be neaiiy equivalent to Plato's, APX0MEN02 yi -^m
AIA TEAOTS tsto aTTEjuagTu^sTO, SoPHlST, p. 237. vol. 1,
Ed. Sen-an. — As ipso primohdio ad finem usauEhoc
graviter testatus est. — . —

[ 125 ]
be mistaken- — The first thing that Jesus Christ
DID upon earth, was to appear there, — that
is, to take, by his Incarnation, our nature
upon him ; as the Apostle to the Hebrews says,
^e took on him the seed of Abraham ; and
was made in all things like unto his brethren.
Heb. ii. l6, 17. — This was the first great Act
and Deed of the Redeemer of Mankind ; and,
1 humbly conceive, a Gospel that does not
speak explicitly and positively to this, is not an
entire Gospel: it passes over the great com-
fnencement of all he did. — A primary Gos
pel omitting this, or only referring to it, but
not circumstantially recording it, I would call
an imperfect Gospel. — — I have formerly inti
mated*, that St, Mark's Gospel, considered as a
primary integral Gospel, was materially defective
in this respect ; but I have since taken occasion to
acknowledge-^-, that, considered as a supplemen
tal Gospel, it is in a high degree interesting and
important.  ^This distinction of the Gospels,
into " integral or primai-y" and " subsequent or
supplemental," will, I conceive, be of material
* " Disc. Con. on St. Luke's Preface." p. 73.
t "Disc, Con, on the supposed Evidence, &c. that St
Matthew's Gospel was the first written." p. 89, Note.

[ 12^ ]
tlse in our enquiry ; and I am obliged to Dr.
Lardner for suggesting it. — In observing, (as
I cannot but do,) his misapplication of it, we
may, I trust, deduce more warrantable conclu
sions from considering the three first Gospels,
with regard to their respective contents, in this
suggested point of view. — ¦ — Dr. Lardner, as
I have before said, appears to me highly inaccu
rate in his idea of a completely integral Gospel-
According to him, the greatest requisite extent
of a Gospel is, from our Lord's Baptism
(by John) to his commission to his Disci
ples to go and teach all Nations inclusive.
Finding all the principal Gospel Facts, within
this compass of time, noticed by all and every
one of the three first Evangelists, he puts all
the first three Gospels on a footing with regard
to their contents. Having given his catalogue
of, what he terms, " all the integrals of a Gos
pel," (which catalogue however I contend ac
cording to his own acknowledgement, upon
another occasion, to be defective,) he proceeds
to say, " all these things are in all and every
one of the first three Evangelists : which shows,
that they did not know of each other's writings ;
— for it cannot be thought, that they should

[ 127 ]
be disposed to say the same tilings over and
over, and to repeat what had been well said al
ready."'  Assuming this to be undeniably
so, he goes on to observe ; " If St. Matthew's
Gospel had been written at about eight, or fif
teen, or twenty years after our Lord's Ascension,
and had become generally known among the
faithful, it is not improbable that we should
have had but two Gospels, his and St, John's."
— I have no hesitation in saying, " We should,
in that case, have had no one coaiPLETJEiY in
tegral Gospel."  It is, indeed, well ob
served by Grotius, that, " In the writings of
Luke and John, alone," (i. e. without recurring
to the other Gospels,) " are contained all those
things, which it is necessary for any Christian
to know, believe, or practise *." — This is cor
rectly so, — The Gospel of Luke is, strictly
speaking, an integral Gospel ; as it contains
all the facts absolutely necessary to establish
that great, divine Truth, that " Jesus Christ,
manifested by his miracles, and declared by a
* " At in Scripture Novi Testamenti, im6 in solis hbris
Lucae et Johannis, ea continentur, quae cuivis Christiano,
cognitu, speratu, factu, sunt necessaria."  Annotat. ad
Consult, Cassand. Opera, Vol. iv. p. 628,

[ 128 ]
Voice from Heaven the son op God, really
was HE THAT SHOULD COME,-  the long-
predicted Messias." — To this primary, inte
gral Gospel, that of St. John is materially
Supplemental ; and, by an addition of some
Facts, and many most Divine Discourses, when
read after that of St. Luke, (as Grotius well
observes,) furnishes ail that any Christian needs
" to know for his Soul's health," and for his
own Eternal Salvation.  Lardner proceeds
to observe ; " If there had been several," (that
is, several Gospels written after St. Matthew's
Gospel was written and generally known,) " they
would all, except the first, have been in the
manner of Supplements, like St. John's, not
entire Gospels, like those of the three first,"'
¦  Readily admitting Lardner's principles,
I feel myself entitled positively to deny that
" the three first Gospels are," all, " entire
Gospels." — I assert, that the only integral
Gospel, of all the four, is that of St. Luke.
I have already argued that St. Mark's Gospel,
while it is so materially supplemental, is,
by no means an integral or " entire Gospel :"
it does not record a single circumstance of the

[ 129 ]
birth of the Saviour. I may confidently affirm
the same respecting St. Matthew's Gospel, on.
the ground of his omission of the Ascension.
And, reasoning on the principles of Lardner, I
inight justly conclude, " as it is not integral, it
could not be primary" Pursuing his mode of
arguing, I might proceed to say, " St. Mat
thew's Gospel is evidently subsequent, for " it
is written in the manner of a Supplement."
¦  ' I have already showed, that this appeared
to me to be the case, from a general compari
son of his Gospel with that of St, Luke. But,
on looking particularly to the two first Chapters
of St. Matthew's Gospel, I am tempted further
to say, "his writing secondarily and supple
mentally" appears to me palpably evident ;
because his very language, in two most impor
tant instances, is not that of narration, (which
it certainly would have been, were he the pri
mary writer,) but of reference, as it seems
to me, to fact? already recorded by some
preceding writer,  which facts, it is tb
be observed, -are actually narrated by St. Luke
in the clearest and most satisfactory manner,
so as fully to establish the certainty of them.
— I proceed to show, that this is really so. —
St, Matthew, in our translation of the Gospel,

[ 130 1
is made to Say, * Now the birth of Jesus Christ
* I must, here, observe, that I cannot readily accede to tbis
mode of rendering Ta Je Iho-s Xfir« i' ymnm btd; iiiv,  I
incline to the opinion of those who consider yswnirii here
and yEVEcrij ver, 1, as words precisely of the same import. —
— Griesbach, indeed, ver 18. would read yiKnu  1 would
accept his reading, and render it, as retrospective to the pre
ceding part of the Chapter j " Such then was the genera
tion of Jesus Christ," In doing this, I would
certainly retain to ya; (in MmrEvftEoi; yaj Maifiag) its pri
mary and most common sense of for j and I would
understand it to introduce the remainder of the chapter in
explanation of what is said ver, 16, showing how Joseph
was induced to become actually, in the eye of the law, (so
as to legalise the foregoing pedigree,) the husband of Mary,
by taking to him his espoused wife, although known (by
him) to be with child before they came together,— I would,
thus, render ver, 18, 19, 20,  " Such then was the
generation of Jesus Christ" (i, e, considered legally as the
son of Joseph) ; " for, when his mother Mary had been
espoused to Joseph, she, before they came together, was
found with child of the Holy Ghost ; and Joseph her hus
band, being a just man, but not wiUing to make her a
public example, was minded to put her away privily j and,
when he had thought of these thing^, behold the Angel of
the Lord appeared unto him, &c, &c."  See Park-
hurst's Greek L^con vox yaj:-— where the reader may
notice the judicious caution against the popular acceptation
of y«f, as a mere expletive, in many passages of the New
Testament,

t 131 ]
teas on this ivise, c, i. l8. — But he does not
proceed, as we might expect, to narrate " the
birth of Jesus Christ." — He giVes, instead, a
circumstantial and highly interesting account,
how Joseph was induced to take unto him
Mary his wife, when found with child, on
its being told him by an Angel that she
was with child of the Holy Ghost: and
the narration then proceeds to relate, that
he (Joseph) knew her not, till she (had)
BROUGHT FORTH her first-bom son. ver.
25.^- Here, I say, Matthew plainly refers to
some, already recorded, narration of the birth
of Jesus Christ ; all the circumstances of which
had then, (according to Macknight's Hypothe
sis,) been recortled by St. Luke, who relates
the birth precisely in the same words *, and
sJie brought forth her first-bom son. —
How then can I avoid sayitig, that St. Matthew
actually refers to St. Luke -f ? To whom else,
* The words in the Greek are exactiy the same :
(x«t) fT£»E Toy wiov avrrl^ tow stjiiJTOTOXOv, — ^— — LuKe, li. 7-
(luf ti) (TEKE TOV Vlot ttUTli? TOW WfaJTOTOJCOV, — — — Mat, 1. 25-
tts observed by Dr. Owen, that St, Luke "^had
strongly recommended" to theGentiles, (to whom he wrote,)
the Gospel of St. Matthew, — " not hy name indeed, but
by a better, and more common method, — that of quoting
and copying his words,"  1 might term this befebbkcs
K 3

t 132 ]
indeed, can he refer ? — Again ; St. Matthew
thus commences his account of the Magi,
" coming to worship Christ,"  Now, when
Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea,
in the days of Herod the King, — c. ii. I. —
Here, also, what is said of Jesus being " born
in Bethlehem of Judea," is palpably referen
tial *. And to what antecedent Memorialist,
of St. Matthew, an Apostie Evangelist, to the Gospel of St.
Luke, in point of rank, an inferior Evangelist, a recommenda-
tionpeculiarly becoming his superiorrank and higher autho
rity ; and in fact, (if Macknight's Hj^othesis is admitted,) I
must fconsider it an actual attestation both of the irrefraga-
bki divinely superintended veracity, and high importance, of
St. Luke's Gospel. — I have formerly noticed the testimony
of an Apostie Evangelist, to the prior writings of an Evan
gelist not Apostie ; aiid the attestatory importance of it. >—
"Disc Cons, on St, Luke's Preface," p, I74.
* It intimates, indeed, to all his readersj of that time,
and of every ftiture age, somewhat ot the foUovring import ;
" It is perfectiy needless for me to relate to you how it hap
pened, that Jesus, who was reputed to be a Galilaean and
bom at Nazareth, was really born at Bethlehem of Judea,
and thus fidfilled that particular prophecy that the Messiah
should 'be born there. That important feet, with all the
circunlStances leading to it, has been already minutely
recorded, in a Gospel \vritten under the immediate super
intendence of the Holy Spirit, and which, as it has been
dhdnelyinspired, will be divinely presei-ved for the informa
tion of every future age, — But I have some further infor
mation to give you respecting some other events connected

C 133 ]
or Historian can it refer ? — We know of no
one, who has recorded it at all, but St: Luke,  '
By him the birth of Jesus Christ at Bethlehem,
with all the circumstances which led his mother
to be there, when the days were accomplished
that she should be delivered, — are narrated in
the clearest and most satisfactory manner ; as
the importance of the Fact particularly de
manded *. — I might add, that the idea of
mth this important fact, and tending to corroborate and
confirm the account already given of it in the primary
Gospel." * That Jesus Christ vras actually born at Bethlehem of
Judeaj was a very important fact, highly requisite to be
ascertained respecting him ; as it identified him, so far, tp
be the Messiah, who, it was expressly foretold by the Pro
phets, should be bom there, — But in a Gospel, written
for the Jews exclusively, (if there had been such a thing,)
I presume it would have been most minutely and clearly re
corded. — The objection of the common order of the Jews
to Jesus, as being the Messiah, or " that prophet," was
that he came out of, or was bom in, Galilee. See John vii.
41. 42, 52,— And here, I must ask; Would any Jew he-
heve My the fact of the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem, on
the sole authority of Matthew's brief, (and, as I consider
it,) referential account, c, ii, 11, ? — I am tempted to say
the same, respecting Ver, 19, of the first Chapter, — If
we had no further, corroboratiuog account of Mary's being
with child by the Holy Ghost, but merely what is recorded

[ 134 ]
reference to- St. Luke, with regard to the birth
of Jesus Christ at Bethlehem of Judea, is
corroborated by the combination in the days of
Herod the King; as St. Luke commences his
Gospel, and the early records of it, by stating
that the interesting facts which he is going to
record, and which he so fully records, took
place in the days of Herod the king of Judea,
>  Indeed, putting St. Luke's Gospel entirely
out of the question, I cannot but conclude,
froni Matthew's mode of writing, that the
birth of Jepus Christ had at that time been
actually narrated by some preceding Historian,
who had clearly ascertained the fact of his
being born in Bethlehem of Judea, and that in
the days of Herod the King of Judea : —
because I find Matthew so confidently, as it
appears to me, referring to some such antece
dent Record of established Authority, as then
by Matthew respecting the Angel's declaration of it to Jo
seph in a Dream, — might not some objections have been
started to its credibihty ? — But, supposing the Annuntia-
tion, and all the corroborating circumstances recorded by
St, Luke, to have been previously committed to writing
by him, and then generally known from his Gospel, how
different is the claim, which Matthew's brief, referenfial
narration makes, to be accepted and fully believed !

C 135 j
well-known.  At the same time, there is
not, I believe, any record existing, — nor, in
fact, have we any account of any record ever
having existed, of such authority that Matthew
could rely upon it himself, so as to refer to it
with confidence, or could expect his future
readers to rely upon it, (so as to be satisfied
with his referential intimation of these facts,)
except the Gospel of St. Luke.  1 would
further observe, the Apostle Evangehst would
not have thus referred to any record, but what he
knew to be written under the immediate super
intendence of the Holy Spirit ; and which, as
being thus divinely inspired, he knew would
be also divinely preserved, and, being handed
dowm to fiiture ages together with his. own
largely supplementary record, would not fail
to vouch in clear narrative detail the important
facts, which, instead of recapitulating, he briefly
refers to as connecting or introducing his own
new matter.  Such a Record, in fact, is
the Gospel of St. Luke. ¦¦  —All
this, I must say, appears to me so clear, and
the conviction, which it brings to my mind, is
so strong, that I cannot but wonder, it has not
occurred to many persons to draw some snch

[ IS6 ]
conclusions fi-om these indicatory circumstances,
of the two first Chapters of St. Matthew's and
St. Luke's Gospels, relatively considered, —
and especially in these two particular points. —
 Not aware, that it " had occurred" to any
body to think with me in this respect, I might
well have been tempted to suppose myself la
bouring under a strong delusion ; or, at least to
believe that my ideas, or reveries, on the sub
ject, were like those of " the Lunatic, the
Lover, and the Poet," as described by our
great Dramatist, " of imagination all com
pact."  The zealous
Editor of a favourite Author, and the earnest
Advocate of an adopted Hypothesis, may both,
perhaps, be justly suspected, in some instances,
of sacrificing judgtnent to imagination, and of
seeing truth, as the romantic lover did his
mistress, " where she has not been."  And
I might well suspect myself in this instance,
did I really stand totally single and unsupported
in the conclusions which I have drawn. 
Fortunately this is not so.  It occurs to me,
in this actual conclusion of my Considerations,
to observe, that an eminently learned Prelate,
and judicious Commentator on the Gospels, — ^

[ 137 ]
highly distinguished, also, for his general litera
ture, and critical acumen, — has formed the
same conclusions, (as it appears to me,) on
the very ground which I have now been
considering. I allude to Bp. Pearce's note
on Mat. 1. iS. ; which is the first general
note, in his Commentary on the Four Gos
pels. It is given briefly, without assigning
the reasons on which he formed his opinion.
But, standing at the foot of the Text, it may
well be supposed to refer the reader to the eight
concluding verses of the^r*^ chapter, and to
the beginning of the second, for the grounds *
on which the learned Prelate had formed

* It is probable that this observation was made by Bp,
Pearce, before even the first edition of Macknight's Har-
M0N1 had appeared ; at least before he had seen it, — I
collect, from his Life, that, from the time he was made
Bishop of Rochester, which was in the beginning of 1756,
the work, to which he devoted himself, was his magnum
opzw, his Commentary with notes on the Four Evan
gelists ANn THE ACTS OFTHE ApostLes, He had proba
bly begun this work some time before, as, the year preced
ing his translation to Rochester, he had expressed an
earnest desire to resign his bishoprick of Bangor ; the
tnotive of which appears to have been a wish for more lei
sure to pursue his hterary labours.  The observation in

[ 138 J
his opinion ; which he does not lay down dog
matically, but modestly and difiidently inti
mates. " It SEEMS to me," says he, — i. e. (as I
would supply the ellipsis,) " it seems to me,"
from St. Matthew's manner of writing in this
part, " that he must have written his Gospel
after St. Luke." And, leaving the reader
to judge, from the Gospel itself, how far
this is so, he intimates, with the same un-
presuming tone, that, if such an hypothesis is
tenable, " if this was so," it would solve certain
Phaenomena in the two first chapters of St.
Matthew's Gospel ; which, on the supposition
that it was the flrst written of the four Gospels,
certainly seem to require some solution. — This
short, but important note of the learned Com
mentator had totally escaped me, when I was
primarily putting together the materials for th^
-question, I can imagine, was made in Hmine, at the first
commencement of his work ; and, if so, as itremained there
at his death, in 1774, it was his opinion for twenty years
at least.  The acuteness and sound judgment of Bp.
Pearce, as a Critic, are noticed by Olivet, the learned edi
tor of Cicero, in his Preface : Bp. Pearce is there described,
" homo excellentis ut ingenii, sic judicii ; et k quo non
nisi magna expectes."

C J39 ]
foregoing pages : otherwise it would have found
its place among the opinions of later writers,
just before my detailed account of Macknight's
Hypothesis. But it is, perhaps, better reserved
for this place ; as it will close, with the best and
most conciliating effect, these desultory, (and
sometimes, I fear, too presuming,) Conside
rations,
" It seems to me, that Matthew wrote
his Gospel after that of Luke was writ
ten. And, if this was so, Matthew probably
omitted all the other circumstances pre
vious to the birth of Jesus, because Luke
H.\D mentioned them ; AND HE INSERTED AN
ACCOUNT OF THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, i. e. how
Joseph was induced to take unto him his
espoused wife, and of that of the wise men
FROM the East, because Luke had omitted
THEM." Bp, Pearce's Commentary, vol. I. p. 4.

C 141 ]

1 HERE oflfer some additional Observations,
on 2 Corinth, viii. l8 ; which I intimated a
wish to do, in a note p. 6l. supra.
1 am tempted to hazard a conjecture, that this passage
of St. Paul was the first instance of tvjcFytXiov being used
for a "written Gkispel ;" at least, that the use of the word,
in that sense, arose from this passage.  I must here
observe, that I cannot by any means accede to Macknight's
Translation, in his latest work, of « o ETraivoc sv toi ivaFytXno
Jb laatTiit rm c7i.x\D<nuf — whose praise by the Gospel is
throughout all the Churches*.  1 first positively
* I take this opportunity to subjoin some Observations of
Dr. Macknight, on this passage of St, Paul's Second Epistle
to the Corinthians, which he had made in his second work,
the Thuth OF THE GospEi. History ; which ought to have
found their place iu a preceding part of these Considerations,
 " St, Paul," says Dr. Macknight, " in his Second Epistle
to the Corinthians, written A, D, 57, mentions Luke as then
possessed of great reputation, on account ofthe Gospel which
ie had composed. If e have sent with him the Brother, whose
praise is in the Gospel, throughout all the Churches. 2 Cor.
Tiii. 18  That the Apostle is speaking of Luke and his

[ 142 J
claim, for the elhptical e,-i, the place which our version
had allotted, and which our Author himself had before
given it, immediately after iTram; : and, as St. Paul's very
frequent, or rather constant elliptical mode of vnriting
has been obsei-ved, by many Commentators, (see, especially,
the very learned I. Camerarius, CoMME^-T. in N. Foedus,

Gospel) may be collected not only from the arguments men
tioned, Harmony, Prelim. Observat. vii., (seep. 55, supra,)
but from this additional circumstance, that the character, or
description, given here, cannot be applied with propriety to*
any other, ff hose praise is by his Gospel, throughout all the
Churches : so the passage ought to be translated. This could
hardly be said even of Paul himself; for, though he greatly
exceeded the other Apostles in the abundance of his labours,
there were some Churches to whom he was not personally
known (Coloss, ii, 1.), and others who had not heard of his
name (Eph. iii, 2,),  Besides, there was something peculiar
tothis Brother's Gospel, hy which he was distinguished from
every other preacher. Now this could lie, neither in the mat
ters preached by him, which doubtless were the same with
those preached by his brethren ; nor in the manner of his
preaching, which we may easily believe was inferior o that
of the Apostles, What more proper interpretation, then, can
we put on the passage before us, than that the singular fam^
of this Brother, throughout all the Churches, arose from his
having committed to writing our Lord's History, which, by
way of eminence, obtained from the very beginning the title
of Gospel, being so named by our Lord himself. Mat, xxiv..
13. For such a book, as soon as it came abroad, q^uickly
spreading itself through the Churches, would procure the
Author thereof great, uai'^ersal, and lasting applause." p,
391, 992.

[ 143 ]
in quo figurce sermonis ^c, tractantur,) I would suppose a
further, and more material ellipsis, between sua/ysXiy and
Jia ¦ro-atriv thjv ExxXrurioJv,  Putting St, Luke out of the
question, in considering the passage, — it strikes me, on
the perusal of it, that " the Brother," here indicated, is
evidentiy characterised as entided to peculiar praise, for
having, in some way or other, (at that time too well
known to require being specified,) facihtated a knowledge
of the Gospel, through all the Churches, to the new con
verts imder them.  vThat " aU the Churches" should
particularly unite in singing the praises of any one parti
cular Brother, ^nd chosen fellow-labourer of St. Paid, for
his eminent- services in preaching the Gospel, already
preached by the twelve Aposties, and by St. Paul himself,
— is, in my opinion, not very likely : — but that St. Paul
should attest the eminent praise-worthy merit of any
Brother, v/l.o, as the general Church of Christ rapidly
increased, first facihtated the means of diffusing the light
of the Gospel, by the several distinct Churches or Con
gregations, more quickly, and more perfectiy, to aU who
were desirous to receive it, is highly probable, and accords
with his character and the circmnstances of the Church,
 Considering the passage in this point of view, I
could not but harbom* a conjecture, that the o -.xai-ja;, (see
Philip, iv. 8.;) or eminent praise-worthy merit of this
Brother, (whoever he' was,) consisted in his having com
mitted to writing the (before) orally predicated Gospel
History (to aia!yikKt), and having published, and dispersed
this written Gospel throughout all the Churches, (Ji» woo-Sv
Tiii» eKK\'>mm,) i. e, through aU the Churches of those parts
to vsrhich this particular Epistle, in which^ tiie feet is re-

[ 144 ]
ferred to, was addressed.  And here it may be Ob
served, that this SECOND Epistie to the Corinthians is ad
dressed, not merely to the Church at Corinth, but also, to
" all the Saints in all Achaia," i. e. to all the other Con
gregations of Christians in all the province of Achaia (n
oXii T^ Axata) : and Achaia is the particular country, in
which, and for which, as many learned Commentators have
asserted, Luke actually vsrote his Gospel. — So that here
is somewhat of further ground for applying, what is said
by St, Paul, to St. Luke, and supposing the former to
have characterised the latter, as the Brother whose (eminent
merit worthy of the highest) praise is in (i. e. is to be
recorded on account of) the Gospel .(which he had com
mitted to writing, and caused to be published and dis
persed) throughout all the Churches (of those parts*). 
* Macknight, and others, have, indeed, supposed St, Luke
lo have written his Gospel at Philippi in Macedonia. 
It is justly observed, by Michaelis, that " When it is said
that St. Luke's Gospel was written in Achaia, this word must
not be taken in the confined sense, in which it was used by
the ancient Greeks, but in the more extensive sense in which
it was used by the Romans, who gave the name of Adiaia to
the whole southern part of Greece, in opposition to Mace
donia, whidi was the northern province." Marsh's Mit
cHAEHf, vol. UI. p. 257,  And Whitby, in his " Table
of all the Places mentioned in the New Testament," also no
tices Achaia to have been thus used by St, Paul, in the Ad
dress of his Second Epistle to the Corinthians, " in its largest
sense, as comprehendiug Greece properly so called," — 
Now Philippi, being \a the southern part of Macedonia, was
at no great distance froiji the northern parts of Achaia. A

r 145 -]
On the whole, I inchne to think, to suaiyEXiov Sia ¦aaam rm
iKKXntnSv must have related to a written Gospel j in
which case to Eua/ytX»o> might soon, I presume, become
equivalent to the whole, and at length acquired the more
general sense, which it has since retained, of a written
Gospel, a recorded History of the Incarnation, Birth,
Life, Ministry, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of
Jesus Christ,

Havino; been led to consider the words of
St. Paul, 2 Cor. viii. l8, as supposed to refer
to St. Luke, with some variation from their
more common construction, and generally re
ceived sense, I take this opportunity to
consider another passage, in the Writings of St.
Paul, relating to the same Evangelist.
St. Paul, according to our Version, in his Epistle to the
Colossians, iv, 14., tenms St, Luke the beloved Physician,
 Against this degrading version of the original.

Asxa; o joTfo; o ayaTnro;, I zealously protest. ¦.
Macknight, indeed, interprets it, " Luke the Physician,
greatly beloved of me,"  But I cannot be fully satis
fied even with this,  1 would observe, that this pas-
Gospel therefore written at Philippi, and published from
thence, we may presume, would soon extend itself into
Achaia ; and, making its way to Corinth, would be perfectly
veil known to all the intermediate and inferior Churches.

[ 146 1
sage, not only in the use of ayamroi perfectly single, and
without reference to the t aya-rrm, or to the caiise and
principle of the to ayuirm, but also, in the form, and (may
I not say ?) tiie rythm, and in the effect of the whole
combination, eminently resembles the Divine attestation,
in the Gospel, of the Sons hip of the Saviour, both at his
Baptism and Transfiguration, as recorded, precisely in the
same words, by the three first Evangelists, '^Ovro; triv O
Y'lOS MOr~, "O ArAnHTOS, Mat. iii. 17. &c.  On
which passage of St. Mattiiew, Beza observes, " Est
ayaff>)T0f nomen, ut etiam xXhto;, quse pari ratione Latinfe
reddi Hon, possentj nec temeife repetitus * est aiticulus."
* I cannot forbear spying a few words, here, on 0 iJof f^S,
o ayamroi, my beloved son, as it is (most coldly) translated
in our Version of Mat. iii. 17. ; and as it is noticed by Gilbert
Wakefield, in his Tbasslation of St. Matthew, with
Notes, &c, 4to, 1782,  Mr, Wakefield, in his note in
locum, exhibits the translation suggested by Bishop Law,
" My son, the beloved." But, he proceeds to say ; " This is
not just. To show the absurdity of this from one instance
only ! Who would render 0 oipSaX^oj o-a 0 Je|ioj, Mat. v, 29.
thine eye, the right?" But, I beg to ask ; why not render it,
thine eye, even thy right eye ? Bengel observes, " Dextrum,
proprie in manu, promptius est et carius : inde etiam in
oculo, pede, &c." Gnomon, in locum.  1 have always
admired, or rather felt, the fine eff"ect of our Version of Ge
nesis, xxii. ver, 9. and 16. Take now thy son, raiNB only
sow,' And hast not spared THY son, thine only son :
where the Septuagint renders it Aa^i tov uJov, to» aya?niTo»,
.  K»i an e^aiTo tS uiS, tS ayairnrS.  I cannot therefore
but resist Mr, Wakefield's remark, as perfectly groundless;
and, at the same time, I readily subscribe to the not* ^f

[ 147 ]
He renders it filius ille mem, dilectus ille. And, (looking
to the language only, independent of the person concern
ing whom it is predicated,) 1 should sunilaily translate the
passage imder consideration, medicus ille, dilectus ille.—'
I have to obsene that aya^rnroi, with the article prefixed,
and not strictiy agreeing with any noun, is not used in
the Gospels, except in speaking of the Son of God, and
in a parabohc reference to the same Divine Person, (Mat..
xii. S, Mark xii, 6. Lukex. 13.).  'O aya-jrnroi jxa, 
)i'jLi.5v,  aJsMfoc,  o-tivWo?,  are descriptions of
persons frequentiy used by St. Paul and the other Apostiesy
in their Episties : where indeed, in one instance, we meet
vrith o ayarjiToj alone ;  1 say only in one instance, for,
in Philem, ver. 1. and 3. I understand both rS ayairnr^.
and r^ ayaffnTJli as connecting vrith -ni/.Z>i ; and, in the first
Beza, above cited. I much doubt, if the words ofthe Divine
attestation can be so translated, as to give them their due im
port, and retain to them that efi"ect which they produce in
the original.  Something of the same kind, (but, in
deed, longo intervalla,) I wish to intimate, respecting the
o laTpo?, o ayairnroc.  The learned reader will find soma
very just and acute observations on the " Articulus repe.*
titus," in a work, apparently, of great merit, which I have
received in the very moment of writing this note ; but which
will require to be perused with much more attention, than I
can at present afford it. See Middleton's Doctrine of the
Greek Article; apflied to the Criticism and Illustra
tion OF the New Testament, part I, c, viii, sect, 2,  ¦
I just now observe, that Parkhurst (vox, o, «, to,) renders,
not unacceptably, 5 vioi /as, o «y«7niTo;, " My son, (even) the
beloved." L 2

t 148 ]

verse of St. John's third Epistle, an eUipsis of /iS aftef
Tw ayaTTDTjo is evidentiy imphed in what follows,  Jv
Erfi ayavS ev aM^acc.  1 am inchned to Consider, in
nearly the same light, the one reserved instance, Rom.
xvi. 12. Tlc(<n}a rm ayanrm,  at least according to
Camerarius's explanation of what immediately follows,
•iVj; moWa Exo7ri«o-£» ev Kvfm, to which he ascribes " Elhpsis
usitatissima,'' explaining it, " Multum laboris suscepit
(pertinentis ad me)," &c. &c, note on ver, 5.  And
Beza accordingly translates the passage, " Persida (mihi)
dUectam."  ^ It seems, then, that this characterisation
of St, Lukcj 0 loiTfo;, o ayatcmo?, is not of the common
order of descriptions *, (in the Apostohc Episties,) of any
assistant Preachers of the Gospel, or eminent Members of
the Christian Church.  1 might add that aya^niTo; is
interpreted by Heysychius kex:''P"''i"-''°?j which might be ren
dered gifted with divine grace f.  On the whole I can
scarcely forbear supposing, that St. Paul, in these words,
actually alludes to the high Evangehcal Distinction of St,
Luke, as having then (exclusively) written a Gospel; —
and, (I might add,) having been, (as I have presumed to
fancy. Disc, Cons, on St. Luke's Preface, p. 169.,)
peculiarly designated to, and qualified for, that high oflace,
by oui- Lord himself after his Resurrection. 
* It i< possible an ellipsis might here be supposed o{lfj,St,
under the connection of o aya7r»iT0f with the preceding part of
the verse, Ao-ttk^etoii 'tma~£  But, in that case, I must
claim it equally for o larpos ; which would give to that word
peculiar importance, and materially serve the drift and pur
pose of my general argument.
t See, also, Schleusner's third sense of aya'iDiTor.

[ 149 ]
If my zealous vrish to draw the Reader's attention to St.
Luke, as eminentiy worthy of it, leads me here, or any
where, into misapprehensions, I trust the more learned
Reader, with candour proportionate to his learning, will
bear with me.  1 have indeed to intreat the conti
nuance of his patience, while 1 proceed further, as briefly
as may well be, to consider the word lorpo;, and the pos
sible import of it in this place,  'A learned, and
pleasing Writer, in a very respectable periodical publica
tion, (which he has occasionally enriched with some highly
interesting and original Observations on Scripture subjects,
under the signature of Fidel'isJ has ingeniously supposed,
" that the tradition of St. Luke's having been a Painter,
(which is first mentioned by Nicephorus,) and Of his
having painted the portrait of the Virgin Mary, — instead
of being totally rejected as a mere fiction of imagination,
— had some foundation, and is not wholly void of meaning,"
He proceeds to show, tiiat we find in the writings of this
sacred penman, (especially in the two first Chapters of his
Gospel,) " such a description of the holy Mother, as may
justly be called her portrait ; that is, that of her charac
ter and mind, though not of her person and countenance,"
 He adds; "nothing of this depicturing, of the
character of Mary, appears in any of the other Evange*
lists: St, Luke alone has thus painted her," Literary
Panorama, July, 1807, P- 749, vol, II. 
I might, here, somewhat similarly enquire, (on grounds,
I presume, at least equaUy good,) if the o laT^o; of St,
Paul, in speaking of St. Luke, does not mean somewhat
more than, literally, a Physician?  At all events, I
cannot but suppose, that, in referring to his profession,
the Apostie inclusively pointed at his office of an Evange.

^'1 [ 150 ]
list, or SPIRITUAL Physician.  Several of the Fathers
have glanced at this.-:  'Eusebius speaks of St. Luke
as, " by profession a Physician, who has left evidence of
hi^ Art in heahng Souls, in two hooks divinely inspired *,"
 Gregory of Nyssa says ; " He was rather a Physician
of Souls than of Bodies f."  Jerome says; " From a
Physician of Bodies he became a Physician of Souls J,"
 Pauhnus, Bishop of Nola, in his Carmina Natali-
TIA, has celebrated him onthe same account §.  And
Balthazar Cordere, Editor of the " Catena Graecorum
Patrum in Lucam,'' concludes the spiritedly pleasing Pre
face to his Work, with the foUo^ving reference to St. Luke's
medical profession : " Not forgetting that he was a Phy
sician, he apphes himself entirely to heal the diseases of
the Soul; so that, as St. Jerome has observed, bis writings
*  :  rm h Emrij^m lATPOS, ns, f rXfi-N ©EEA-
HETTIKHS, EV ^vatv v^Ty viroSziy^ara ^soTTvsuroi^ xaTaXe-
XoHTE/Stf^ioj;, — ^EccLES, Hist, I, III. c, 4,
¦{¦ 0 Toivuv Aaxa;, o toXsov TflN ¥TXft'"N ri rm (Ta^arai larpc,
 De PiBNiT, In Luc, vii. 36, tom, II. p, 165, D,
ij: " Et Lucam raedicum, qui Evangelium & Actus Aposto-
lorum Ecclesiis derelinquens, quomodo Apostoli de piscato-
ribus piscium piscatores hominum facti sunt, ita de medico
corporum in medicum versus est animarum,  Cujus liber,
quotiescunque legitur in ecclesiis, toties ejus medicina noa
cessaf." Com. in Epist, ad Philera, tom, VI, p, 216, Ed, Pa
ris, 1628.
<j Hie medicus Lucas, prius arte, deinde loquela ;
Bis medicus Lucas, Ut quondam corporis aegros
TtrrenS. curabat ope, & nunc mentibus jsgris
Gomposuit gemino vit^ medicamina li'jro,
P, 153. De S. Felice. Natal. 9, ver, 424.

[ 151 ]
are a medicine for the sulking soul *."——— Without
resting materially on these encomiastic flights of piously
admuing minds, I would consider whether the o larpo; of
* I cite the learned Jesuit somewhat at large; as his Pa«
negyric on St. Luke comprehends something ofthe idea of
Fidelis, referred to above.  " tluid de stylo dicam?
Tantam Hieronymus ejus esse elegantiam scribit, ut saeculo*
rum quamdain redolere eloquentiam videatur; quippe qui
Philo.sophus medicusque fuerit, & inter omnes Evangelistas
Grseci sermonis eruditissimus. Jam dictis majori profecto dig
na lande reperies, si diligentius ipsam Lues Historiam fu-
eris perscrutatus. Maxima enim fidei nostrsB mysteria, quse
ab aliis Evangelistis prastermissa fuerant, ab illo accuratis-
sime, uti CKtera, magno Ecclesia? bono literis consignata sunt.
Solus enim, uti Christi beatissimjeque ejus Matris efiigies per
nicillo, sic & res eorum gestas brevissime quidem, sed ele-
gantissime, stylo definxit. Solus inquam Evangelistarum,
salutationera Angelicara, Virginisque cum Gabriele collo
quium, visitationeraque Elizabethse descripsit; suavissimis
Deiparffi Simeonisque canticis adjunctis, Christi deinde nati-
vitatem circumcisionemque, ac Virginis immaculatae purifi-
cationem, & totam denique Christi infantiam pueritiamque
complectens, optimo cum rerum gestarum tum temporum
ordine, non fideliter minus quim eleganter conscrijjsit, hisce
de omnibus a Deipara Virgine, cui & a manu & a secretin
erat, luculeuter edoctus, Denique hoc quoque titulo in nos
cleraentior est, quod, non oblitus se medicum, omnia ad in-
firraarum curationem animarum conferl*, adeo ut, teste Hie-
ronymo, ejus verba auimae languentis sint medicina,  .-
 His itaque prsesentissimis contra omne morborum
genus medicinis, peritissimus ille non animarum minus quam
corporum Medicus jacentes erigit, languentes confirmat,
sgrotos curat; &,quod masimiim est, perpeccatuindefunctog
resuscitat,"

[ 152 1
St, Paul may not be understood, figuratively, as equivalent,
to 6 Eua/yEXtrti; ; not merely as the word was then used,
but in the sense we now attach to it.  St. Luke
has, exclusively, recorded, c. iv. 16. 17- 18. &c. (and that
in a manner so strikingly circumstantial, that it positively
indicates to my mind his own personal presence on that
most interesting occasion,) the first preaching of our Lord
at Nazai'eth, where he announced himself to be the Mes
siah, so particularly described by Isaiah, c. Ld. I. 2. &c.,
as the Christ, or the anointed, sent " to preach the
Gospel (EuafyEXi^Eo-Sai) to the poor (or humble-minded), and
to heal (jowacrOat *) the broken-hearted." — .  Here the
* The words latrao-flai mq o-uvTETpippjvs; tuv xapJiav, I arn
well aware, are wanting in many copies.  But they are
cited by Irensus ; which, as Bengel observes, is great autho
rity,  Independent of this, they appear to me to be
fully vouched, by the pointed reference of verse 23,, —
EpEiTE juoj, — lATPE &£pc89rEuo-ov o-EauTov,  I beg here to
observe, respecting the Gospel use of the verb laouai,
that in one passage of St, Luke, I am inclined to think,
it has a spiritual meaning, where, I believe, the more com
mon sense attributed to it is that o{ healing bodily disease. 
I allude to Luke v, 17, Kai iio-av ii.ahjj.siot ^afuraToi xai No-
fioJiJcta'xaXoi, ol ^a-av eXhAuOote; ex •aa.a-m xMfitic,  .xai Juvaai;
KufiB m EI2 TO lA^SeAI ATTOTS. Here auTsj is com-
inonly referred to the o;)^Xoi raoXXci oi i7uv)if;n;ovTo &Efa-
w.evicr9ai atio rwf ao-SsvEiilv airm, ver. 15.; and, to smooth the
difiiculty of this, all that intervenes is placed by some Com
mentators in a parenthesis, as a saving clause, excepting it
from any connection with this particular passage. 
Schwartz, indeed, in his Commentarii Critici &c. Novi
FosDERis, considers lao-Oai, here, " per metaph. medeor

[ 153 ]
5-0 EuafyEAi^EtrSai and the. TO laa-acriai seem SO combined, as
to be nearly equivalent ; or the icstjeik may possibly be sup-
pravituti animi,  corruptelam mentis sanoJ" And G, L.
Oeder, in his Animadversiones Sacr^;, contends that the
Pharisees and Doctors of Law were actually (spiritually)
healed, or converted, by Christ ; " confidenter asseverans,"
says Koecher, *' ipsos illos PharisEBOs & Legisperitos iutus, &
in m^nte a Christo sanatos esse," Koecher adds, "Mirorhoc
TJro erudito in mentem venire potuisse, quura Lucas nihil de
PharisEeis ad saniorem mentem reductis dicat, &c,"  1 be
lieve, Oeder was well entitled to the character of eruditus ;
Saxius speaks of his Theological and other works, as " quae
eum noeilitaverunt,"  But though Luke does not
mention any positive effect on the minds of these hearers of
our Lord's most powerfully divine discourses, I apprehend,
we may infer something of the kind from what is said by St.
John, on another occasion : I mean in his xiith chapter, ver.
38, where he applies to the obstinately unbelieving Jews the
words of Isaiah vi, 10, ; which application, (See Mat, xiii, 1 4.
Mark iv, 12, Luke viii, 10,) has a more general reference
than to that particular occasion,  The great healino
which the Jews rejected, from the revealed arm, or mani
fest power of God, now so eminently extended in their fa
vour, was Salvation by the Gospel; their hearts, through
long obstinacy, were fatally indurated, that they should not
see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, and be
converted, and I should heal them (>cai lASiiMAI auTSj).
 Nevertheless, proceeds the Divine Evangelist, (ver. 42,)
among the chief rulers also maty believed on him. The divinely
healing power, upon some occasion of our Lord's teaching,
went so far, then, as to touch the hearts of some of
them. This corresponds with the actual language of St. Luke,
?i«i Juva/iis Kufis m EI£ TO IA~i;0AX auTa;,—— usque ad

[ 154 }
posed to advance a step fiirther, and to consist in admi
nistering the TO EuafycXiov, by communicating and making
sANARE mentes eorum.  This was doubtless the case af
Nicodemus, (see John, c, iii, 1. compared with c. xix, 38,
39,) ; from whom, (or from Joseph of Ariraathea,) John
might have received this communication respecting some of
their Brethren,  InKicodemus were actually united the
two characters of Ruler {A^x"^)) ^^ spoken of John xii, 42,
and of Doctor of the Law (NojxoJiJao-jcxT^os), as spoken of
Luke V. 17,  See John iii, 1, also, 10,  St, Luke then
might learn from St. John, if not from Nicodemus himself,
the particular effect of our Loid's teaching in this instance on
his (Nicodemu&'s) brethren, the No|U.oJ'iJa(7xaXoi, — who might
also be AfjfojTEc ; — and among whom it is possible he (Ni-
codemu<) himself might have been, and, even at that parti
cular time, might have laid the_^rs/ foundation of that belief,
which he yet dared not to avow publicly.  It may be
further observed, that while Jesus was proceeding with his
divine discourses to his earnestly attentive auditory, the sick
of the palsy was let down into the crouded area (Luke v. 1 9.),
¦where the Pharisees and Doctors of the Law (see ver, 21,)
still certainly were, and were minutely observant of every
word and action. Jesus immediately heals him ; and that in
an exclusively particular manner, peculiarly announcing his
own supreme Divinity, The efiect is proportionate,
St. Luke tells us, Kai sxrao-i; eXmCev 'AriANTAS- xai EAOE-
AZON TON ©EON- xai mXn(r&n<ra> <DOBOT, x, t. X, 
(I would say,) Implicit admiration of the Divine Power took
full possession of them all, even the Scribes and Pharisees,
the Doctors of the Law, and Rulers of the Jews : They
ascribed all the glory of the Miracle to God himself; and
felt a reverential awe, a deep conviction of the actual pre-
sieiice of the Divinity, — They even said, under the full im-

[ 155 ]
known its divine authority and most salutiferous efficacy,
in recording and publishing widely the Gospel Facts and
Doctrines.  Hence then, I say, o larpo; inight be
considered as equivalent to o wa,fysXiTif ; and that, in its
latest sense.  Our blessed Lord, indeed, pointedly refers
td himself in the ministiy of his Giospel, as a Physician of
Souls, or a Spiritual Physician, Mat. ix. I'i. 13. — Luke v.
31. 32.  He also declares, that he is the true Shepherd
of Souls, or Spiritual Pastor, foreshown by the Prophets;
see Isaiah xl. 11. and Ezekiel xxxiv. 12. According to
our version, he says, I am the good Shepherd, John x. II. j
which he again repeats, ver. 14. But, in this version, we

pression of this, 'On £iJo|Uev IIAPAAOSA o-njiiEjov, <' We have
this day actually seen the wonderful works of God."
Here indeed I incline so to fiU it up : as several commentator*
observe that ifya is here to be understood, citing Ecclesiafr
ticus xliii, 25, 'sra^a^o^cc Kat Saujuacria Epya' and Psalm
cxxviii. 14., as translated by Symniachus, wapa^oja spya o-a :
 in which passage the Psalmist is speaking of the wonder
ful works of God, in the creation of man, and the wonderful
organisation of the human frame, — and to which passage I
am tempted to think these Jews, especially of the higher
order, referred in witnessing so stupendous <i miracle on
the human frame, in its most miserably paralyzed state.
 Here, as in other instances, I am led somewhat beyond
my purpose : (to revert to it,) interpreting Scripture by
Scripture, illustrating Luke v. 17. from John xii. 40. com
pared with ibid, ver, 42,, I really think there is ground for
the opinions of Schwartz and Oeder, respecting the spiritual
aeme of to loo-fiai.

[ 156 ]
lose the fine emphatic effect of the original Eya itfu
'O ratiij/.m, 'O x.a\oq- " 1 am THAT Shepheed, even that
GOOD (Shepherd),"  ^I notice this passage, not so
much to remark its inadequate version, as for the purpose
of observing, that while St. Peter, palpably in reference to
it, terms our Lord the Shepherd and Bishop of (our) Souts,
(tov iiroijj.iva xai mianovoi rZt 4-"%Sv,) 1 Epist. ii. 25., St.
Paul transfers the pastoral ofiice and character to
the Ministers of his Gospel, terming them the pastors and
teachers of his word, Qaoifji.Bva; xai StSaa-xaXa^,) Ephes. iv. 11,
 What St. Paul has clearly done, in one instance,
respecting an eminent characterisation of our Lord by
himself,  may I not suppose him to have done, in an
other instance, which I may venture to teim, as nejirly
similar as can be ?  May I not suppose, that the 'O laTpof
of St. Paul, respecting St. Luke, might well mean " that
Spiritual Physician who has administered to all who
need it, (as all certainly do,) that divinely medicinal
blessing, that great Salvation, which is contained in
that Gospel of Christ, which St. Luke, first of all the
Holy Evangelists, committed to writing ; and, so, was the
instrument of preserving in a permanent form of written
record, as a xth^k ei; kiei ?"  This sense seems fairly
admissible ; and that, in the early ages, it was even ad-.
mitted, might be contended, from the circumstai ce of
the Fathers, in the fourth century, haring thus charac
terised the first Ministers of the Gospel.  This has been
frequently done by Chrysostom, as is noticed by Suicer,
under the word larpo;, Thesaur. Eccles. I. p. 1434.;
where, also, he cites Cyril of Alexandria, expressly cha
racterising " the Holy Aposties and Evangelists (as) Spibi-

C 157 ]
TUAL Physicians*."  Impressed, as I am, wSh
the high character of St. Luke, as it presents itself ta
my mind, and with St. Paul's peculiar appreciation of it, I
cannot but consider the words o laTpo; aS having some such
elevated sense ; for, otherwise, I should be driven, looking
exclusively to those words, to imagine that Luke the
Evangelist is not the person here intended. And such, in
fact, has been the argument of learned men, who did not
suspect, in the words o larpoc, any signification but, Ute-
raUy, the Physician, indicating tlie actual secular profes
sion of St. Luke.  " If he had intended," says Heuman,
'•¦ to indicate that Luke the Evangelist, who was known to
all," (1 presume he means to intimate, known to all as
the Evangelist,) " was then his companion ; he would sim
ply have called him Luke, as he has done, 1 Tini. iv. 1 1,
But, to signify that he is speaking of another Luke, he
adds, for the purpose of distinction, the Physician ¦[." 
Had the characterisation of St. Luke, indeed, been entirely

* lATPOYS <?>«/.«» XINETMATIKOYS umi mq aymg
An02TOAOY2 te xai ETArfEAISTAS, oi ha rni av^fia
;^apiTOf, xai t«5 evsryiVfAMri ;^op»?yiaf, TON IA~S©AI AT-
NAMENON xaTaTrXSTSvTEs AOFON, ^cfaTrcvairi ts; nrfav-
|L(.aTio"fA£va; ^tto te t^; a/xapTia; xai Tiqj t5 oia^oTcs crxaioTiSTOf.
 C. xxvi. lesais, p. 366,
t " Si hoc loco innuisset comitem suum, omnibus notum,
Lucam Evangelistam, simpliciter vocasset Lucam, uti fecit
2 Tim, iv. 11. At ut significaret, se de alio Luca loqui, dis-
criminis causi addit o losTpo;." Pcecile, tom. II. p. 519.  •
This is cited by RosenmuUer, in locum s with an " ut rectfi
nionet Heumannus."— —

[ 158 ]
confined to these words *, I might well have acceded to
this argument ; but, when I consider them in combination
with what follows, o laTpo;, "O ArAITHTOS, I am precluded
from doing so. Indeed, 1 cannot but derive additional
confidence, in my own arg^ument, from the insulficiency
of this.

For the prolixity of the preceding disquisi-
fory note, I ought, perhaps, to ofter some
apology ; — especially, as I do not mean to lay
any great stress upon it, as (singly in itself)
materially advancing the general Argument of
the Considerations.  But little points, of
this kind, sometimes serve well to support and
illustrate greater ones ; and even slender pro
babilities, in combination with those of a higher
degree, form an accumulation of Evidence
tending to eft'ectuate con'^nction. 
The RESULT of these, and all my former Con
siderations, respecting this eminent, but ill-
appreciated -|~ Evangelist, and his Gospel, as it
* Had it been only Asxa; o larpog, — exactly as AXslavJfo; u
XaX'-iw;, 2 Tim, iv, 14.
+ I do not allude merely to those modern writers, who,
questioning the Inspiration of St, Luke, would bring him
down to the level of " a mere human Historian" ; but I com
prehend the Fathers, and all later writers, who consider him,
as " having (oilly) committed to writing the Gospel preached

[ 159 ]
presents itself to my mind, I briefly, in con
clusion, lay before the Reader.
- I cannot but persuade myself, that we
have good reason to suppose, respecting St.
Luke, 
First. That — HE was an early Disciple
of Christ, and had personally seen *, and
by St Paul, of whom he was a follower, (L e, not having
been a Disciple of Christ,)" according to Irenseus, who says j
Asxa;, 6 axoXaGo; TIauXa, to ltt' Exsiva y.'i^pvo'a-o^Evov evafyEhioi/
ev /3i?Aii) xaTESsTO.
* See Disc. Cons, on St. Luke's Preface, &c. passim ; but
especially p. 115. Note, — To the instances there given of inter
nal evidence of his Autopsy, in some parts of his Gospel, 1 beg
to add one more, which appears to me particularly strikiug.
I refer tlie Reader to Luke vii, 37 — 49, ; and, indeed, to
the end. The Evangelist actually conveys to us a most
perfect idea of every look and mrttion of the Divine
Speaker,  There is an originality of description, and a
peculiarity of effect, in the narration, which, I thiuk, posi
tively indicates the personal presence of the writer,  ,
I would also just notice one or two lesser circumstances, in
St. Luke's Gospel, which seems to mark the same,  He
notices (c. xii, I,) the multitude being innumerable, insomuch
that they trod one upon another ; rather, as it might be trans
lated, that they trod one another down:  Karairarw
iignifying to tread under foot, or trample on : compare,
Luke viii. S.  This circumstance, from such a crowd,
thus noticed, indicates, I conceive, the writer to have been

[ 160 1
beard a great part of what our Lotd did and
taught ; and was zealously observant of all
that he saw or heard :
Secondly. That — 'What HE did not see
or hear, (of the principal things done or taught
by our Lord,) from not having been personally
present at that particular time, he was studious
fully to inform himself of, from the best and
most infallible authority ; which, I think,
there is reason to imagine was, in some in
stances, that of the beloved Apostle, St.
John * :
an eye-iMtness.  ' — In relating the cure of the man with
the withered hand, t. vi. 10., he says. And, looking roiind
jtBouT UPON THEM ALL, he (Jesus) Said unto the man, stretch
forth thy hand.  Here again, I say, isa strong evidence
of personal presence. The look, the import of which he
does not (perhaps could not) describe, forced itself on his re
collection, and makes a part of his narration,  And here
I cannot but observe, as an instance of the importance of
Mark's supplementary Gospel,, that " the import" of the look
is explained by him,  doubtless, on the information of
that eminently curious observer of our Lord's looks, St, Peter.
(See " Disc. Cons, on the supposed Evidence," &c. p, 95,
note,)  1 must just add, St, Matthew takes no notice of
- the look 5 but he gives, (sicut suus est mos,) some additional
matter in the ra Xcx^ivra vTto tS Kupia, upon the occasion.
Mat, xii, 11, 12.
* See " Disc, Cons, on St. Luke's Preface, &c." p. 98.
93. &c.

[ 161 J
Thirdly. That — HE minutely learned all
the early history of our Lord, (comprehending
the account of his birth, and the material cir-*
cumstances previous to it,) from the Virgin
Mary * ; — either immediately from her her
self, or through the medium of St. John, as
communicated by her to him -|- :
» See Maldonat, CommeKt. p, 840, ; also P, Cordere, as
cited, p, 151. supra; where Luke is described, " Deipari
Virgine luculeuter edoctus,"
+ "Disc, Cons, on St Luke's Preface, &c," p, 92,.^^ — ¦—
I had there considered it probable, that the Mother of
Christ would communicate all the tk avudEv of our Lord's
birth and infancy only to one whom she regarded as a
chosen vessel. That chosen vessel, or o to-avu S^Eon-vEi/roj,
I ventured to suppose mig' t well be St. John ; nor am I in
clined to discard the supposition, but, rather, to retain the
idea as highly probable,  The idea of secondary commu
nication, through St, John to St, Luke, however, might per
haps be dispensed with, ^—— The more I consider the cha
racter of St, Luke, from all the circumstances of his Gospel,
the more I incline to consider him as a chosen vessel, well en
titled to the primary communications of the Blessed Virgin,
 Supposing St. Luke the companion of Cleophas, 
honoured and distinguished by that very early, and most im
portant appearance of our Lord, after his Resurrection, and
by those divine communications certainly qualifying him for,
and (as I cannot but fancy) designating him to, his future
office of (the primary) Evangelist, — to whom, as an emi
nently vhoien vessel, could she confide all her most interest-
M

[ 162 ]
Fourthly. That — HE was the companion
of Cleophas in the journey to Emmaus, re
corded exclusively by (Luke) himself; being
the unnamed Disciple, to whom, together with
Cleophas, of all the Male Disciples, our Lord
FIRST appeared, after his Resurrection ; and
whom, we may imagine, he at once designated
to, and qualified for his important office (of an
Evangelist), by expounding to them all the
Scriptures respecting the Messiah, as fulfilled
in the person of (our Lord) himself, with such
DIVINELY INSPIRING effect that his (St. Luke's)
heart burned within him * :
Fifthly. That — HE was one of the hun
dred and twenty Disciples, Acts i. 15, who,
on the Jay of Pentecost, were all with one ac
cord in one place, Acts ii. 1, and there received
PLENARY Inspiration, being all filled with the
Holy Ghost, ver. 4. ; so that, in this respect,
he was not a whit behind the ve}y chiefest of
the Apostles -f- :
ing communications more Justly than to Luke himself: to
whom I have intimated (ibid, p, 62,) that they were most
importantly and peculiarly interesting ?
* Inin, p, 169,
+ Ibid, p, 166, 167.

[ 1^3 ]
Sixthly, That — Having been thus de
signated to, and, in every respect, fully qua
lified for the important office, HE actually was
the FIRST writer of an inspired Gospel, destined
for preservation, and for the edification of the
Christian world through all ages.
I further incline to think, — •  — — ¦¦¦"¦¦ "
Seventhly. That — HE was the Brother
Mentioned by St. Paul, 2 Cor. viii. 1 8,) ivhose
praise is in the Gospel throughout all the-
Churches ; the full, intended sense of which
passage, I conceive, is, whose (peculiar, or
exclusive) praise is in (i. e. on account of)
the Gospel (first committed by him to
writing, and published) throughout all the
Churches :
And, Eighthly, That — HE was, also, the
person mentioned by St. Paul, as the beloved
Physician, Coloss. iv. 14; which translation,
in our version, seems to me miserably cold
and inadequate, — totally failing to convey to
us what the original appears to intend, viz.
that Spiritual Physician, that selected Mi
nister of Gospel Peace and Salvation, the ear
liest Evangelist, — the first Author of a
written- Gospel.

C 164 1
Upon the whole, I am induced to considef
the Gospel of St. Luke, — not only as " a main
Pillar *," (of the Four,) on which our Religion
peculiarly rests, and which cannot be displaced
without materially weakening the sacred fabric,
but, — as, in fact, the primary and principal
Pillar, on which the whole actually doth rest ;
as that Pillar, which, alone, is able to sup
port the whole, — but to which, at the sam^
time, the other Three lend their contributory
aid, in the highest degree of supplementary
support, symmetrical embellishment, and har
monious perfection.
* The learned Author of the " Remarks on Marsh's
Michaelis, &c." having noticed Mr, Marsh's assertion, that,
" instead of being losers, we should really be gainers, if we
were to consider St, Luke as a mere human Historian," pro
ceeds most justly to observe : " Surely he (Mr. Marsh) is not
aware of the consequences of this rash assertion. How
Christianity should be a gainer by uncanonising an Evange
list, and expunging one of the four Gospels, received without
distinction by the Christian Church from the begmning, it is
difficult to conceive ; unless a fabric were to derive strength
from pulling down oke of its main fillars." p. 17.

J. Nichols and Son, Printers, Red Lion Passage, Fleet Street.

C 165 ]

CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS.

I WISH to correct an inconsiderately unqualified
assertion, which appeared (note, p, 126,) in my Discur
sory Considerations on St, Luke's Preface, &c, viz,
" so that hence in one point they were mistaken, (See
Mat. xxvii, 44, compared vsdth Luke xxiii, 40,)"  That
St. Matthew and St. Mark might not know, on their own
personal knowledge, all that St. Luke might know from
St. John, was an idea that struck forcibly on my mind :
but, admitting this to be so, no such conclusion, as I had
intimated, would follow,  Matthew and Mark " made
NO mistake,'' What they recorded was actually so :— >
only taking into consideration, what the soundest Com
mentators have noticed, that " it is very common in Scrip
ture to express a single thing in the plural number ;" as
it is said. Judges, xii. 7, Jeptha ivas buried in the cities of
Gilead, i. e. in one of the cities of GUeadj Mat, xxi. 7.
And brought the Ass and the Colt, and put on them their
clothes, and set him (ETravu auraJv) upon them, i. e. upon
ONE of them; Mat, xxvi. 8. his disciples, i, e, one of
them; and John, vi, 45, in the prophets, i. e. in one of
the prophets, viz. Isaiah.  See Eisner, ed. Stoschii,
4to, in locum ; and Florus, as there referred to, for three

[ 166 ]
instances of this mode of writing.  In making, there
fore, the observation above referred to, and in speaking
upon another occasion (Ibid. p. 93.) of the " disagree
ment" between St. Matthew and St. Luke, I spake hastily
and unadvisedly.  But 1 am stiU inclined to say, that,
could it be ascertained that St. Matthew's Gospel was the
first vmtten, I should feel eagerly desirous to assign some
reason why he omitted so interesting a circumstance as
the account of the penitent thief.  Whether 1 might,
after due deliberation, ^assign, under some qualifications,
the reason which first occurred to me, it is needless for
me to consider ; since, on the Hypothesis of St. Luke's
being the earliest writer, a most satisfectory solution of
St. Matthew's not mentioning the circumstance obviously
occurs.  It had been already recorded by St. Luke.
To record it a second time' was needless ; especially, if St.
Matthew had nothing to add to it, — '¦ — Besides, it did ilot
coincide with his purpose,  Matthew, it is commonly
said, "^ ¦wrote for the Jews:" he certainly wrote to con
vince the Jews, and indeed all persons conversant with the
Jewish Scriptures, that Jesus was the person, in whom
were actuaUy fulfilled aU the a:ntieTit prophecies respecting
the Messiah. In his xx'viith chapter, froni Ver, 27. to ver.
45. he had it in view ieSpeciaUy to show, that Jesus
Christ, to the last moment of his life, was despised and
rejected of men, Isaiah, liii. 3 ; a reproach of men, and
despised of the people, while all that saw him laughed him
to scorn J they shot out the lip, and shook the head, idying.
He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him ; ' let him
deliver him, seeing he delighted in him. Pssflni xxii. 6. 7. 8,
"¦^— This Matthew relates to have been actually done by

1 167 |]
them that passed by, ('OI HAPAnOPETOMENOI E'Sxourifn-
l^UTi avrpi, xivSvTEj T«; xs^aXa^ avrm, jc, r. X. (ver, 39,) : and
not merely by these accidental passengers ; but the Chief
Priests with tiie Scribes and Elders did the same, (ver, 41,)
coming many of them, we may suppose, purposely so to
do. He then proceeds to relate that the same thing was
done even by ipbbers under execution, and in articulo
mortis ; thus carrying. the national gbstinacy and disbelief
to the greatest possible height,  And iiere 1 cannot for
bear observing,, how different the effect would have been,
if Matthew had related , only that One of the thieves
also,, which were crucified with him, cixst the same in his
teeth ; or if, in this particular place> he had stopped to
¦ detail all the circumstances respectitig the two robbers as
minutely as Luke had done. We should thus have lost all
the effect of the fme .conclusive climax. To ^' avro x.ai o»
XiiS'at, . ol .cTVTavftuQiylEq avrta, ovel^i^ov avrc/i,  '^ And the
same reproach even the robbers, they that, were crucified
with him, .past in his teeth,"  This closes the account,
of -thcfull accomplishnient of the Prophecy, with pecu
liar effect.  What St. Matthew relates, , respecting
the two, malefactors that were crucified together. with our
blessed Lord, was all, that, with his jiarticular purpose,
he felt it necessary to record : and to^l^ave recorded more,
would, in some degree, have counteracted the purpose 'he
,Jiad in .view,  r- At aU events, it was unnecessapy. — —
The detail tof -all. the cirpuipst^nces, having before^ been
given by St Luke,,, St Matthew confined Jumself to. that
material part, which served immediately, to, his purpose,
by identifying, in this respect,' Jesus Chiist as the fore
shown MESSIAH, from the actual accomplishment of these
N 2

[ 168 J
particular prophecies relating to him. 
Thus does this Hypothesis, of St. Luke's being the ear
liest writer, easily, satisfactorily, and in the best manner-
solve the seeming " disagreement" arising from St. Mat
thew's NOT RECORDING what it was, in fact, beside his
purpose and needless for him to record.  Similar elu
cidations of supposed difficulties will, I believe, obviously
occur from our apprehending the Gospels to have been
written in such an order, as makes St. Luke to have
been the earliest writer. 
One seeming discrepancy in the three first Gospels, has
lately attracted the notice of two learned Writers *, nearly
at the same time ; 1 mean the words uttered by the Cen
turion at the Crucifixion of our Lord, as they are dif
ferently reported by St. Matthew and St. Maik on the one
hand, and by St. Luke on the other. The object of both
Writers is to reconcile these different accounts of what
the Centurion said. This they have done very ably, coming
to the same conclusion, through different principles of
solution ; and both considering the bto; Jixaiog fiv as equi
valent to ©ES wJo; rit ST05, At the same time, they agree that
the Centurion made the two several assertions; which
I have no doubt, he did.  With every respect for the
able investigations of these gentlemen, and with a grate-
* Middleton's Doctrine of the Greek Article ; appheb
TO the Criticism and the Illustration of the New
Testament : and Observations on the Words which the
Centurion uttered at the Crucifixion of our Lord;
by A Layman : both published the beginning of this year.
See the former, pp, 339, 391. and 613.

C 169 ]
fill acknowledgment of much satisfactory information de
rived from their observations, I beg to consider the words
of the Centurion, as they are variously recorded by the
primaiy and supplemental Evangelists, on the assumed
principle, that St, Luke was the primary Writer, -¦
1 agree with the two learned Writers, that the Centurion
uttered both the assertions attributed to him ; and I con
sider them both as palpably referential to what he had
heard said of our blessed Lord, by others on high autho
rity, and by our Lord of himself  That the Centu
rion was present at the whole examination of our Lord
before Pilate, there can be little doubt. Consequently he
heard the message of Pilate's wife to her husband, when
sitting of&ciaUy as Govemor on his Judgment-seat. Pos
sibly the Centurion was the bearer of it, or at least con
veyed it from her messenger at the door to Pilate then
sitting EM /^nfiaTo;, and approachable only by his own offi
cers,  There is something in the message highly im
pressive : Have thou nothing to do with that just man (Tfli
AIKAIfii EKEINfii) ; for I have suffered many things this
day in a dream because of him. Matt, xx'vii. 19.
Pilate appears to have been deeply affected by it, and stre
nuously renewed the efforts which he had before made to
release Jesus ; but the Jews charged him with a positive
breach of their law, and called upon the Govemor, under
a powerful threat of imputing to him disaffection to
Caesar, to put the law in execution against him. Thus
compeUed, this Pilate reluctantiy does ; but, in justifica
tion of himself, he first bears testimony to the exalted
character given of Christ, in the interesting message which
he had just received from his wfe, which, on the principle

[ 170' ]
of ovap ex. Ai6( Eriv, he could not but consider as '0'toviiMir%)>
or of divine communication. When Pilate, says St, Mat
thevv, saw that he cbuld prevail nothing, but that rather a
tihnult was made, he took water and washed his hands before
the multitude, saying, I am innocent ofthe blood of this just
person (TdY" AIKAIOT TOTTOr) ; see ye to it.  This
the Centurion', unquestionably, saw and heard ; and com
bining it with the lAessEige which he himself had doubtiess
heard, arid pbobably delivered, we may suppose, he was
deeply impressed withthe character of Christ, thiis' declared
(apavoSsv)' to be Jixauos, — o Joiaioj ejcei'vos, — I ^tKaiofraro^. —
Thus impressed, let us follow him to the concluding scene
of this great catastrophe !  Having witnessed the un-
exairipled patience and resignation of the afflicted add in
sulted Sufferer, to the very moment of his expiring, and
the sympathetically convulsive pang of aU Nature in that
most awful, expiatory accomplishment of our fkte,  he
acknowledges the actual inter esse Deum, the evident in
terest taken by the great Author of Nature in what is
passing, (for so I understand i^o^a&s rot ©eov*,) and
* " The Centurion," says the learned Layman, " seeing
thi;se wonderful events, glorified God, by confessing that
what he beheld was the work of God, Deum sentiebat. Nu-
mjHjs prEBsentiam agnoscebat," And, referring to G rotius z'n
locum, he adds, " Ao^a^u sentio, percipio," ¦ ¦ This is
certainly so. And, viewing it in this light, I consider
eSo^ko-e tov ©eov as equivalent to what Matthew says, xxvii, 54,
E(fiof uOtio-av o-ifoJpa.  Which latter passage Schwartz, in his
Commentar, Critic, Philolog, places among the examples
of (pjS'EOjLiai, in the fourth sense which he attributes to it.

[ 171,1,
considers it as confirming tiie attestation of Christ,
in the vision or divinely-inspired dream of Pilate's
vrife, communicated by her to her husband ; by whom
it was received and admitted as of the highest au
thority.  To aU this, I say, the Centurion palpably
refers in his declaration, ONTfiS* o avSpw^ro; btos AIKAIOS
sacro quodam horrore perfundor & venerationis plena. This
equivalence, in a certain degree, ofthe two expressions may
be collected from Luke's combining them both in such a man
ner that one explains the other : Kat txrao-is tX«.Qiv dvavlat,
xai EAOSAZON TON ©EON, xKi'EnAHZeHSAN *OEOr,
Xiyov'^Ef, '0t< EitfOjiiEv ¦KToipaJoJa <rtiju,Epov, c, v, 26, See p, 154.
supr?, * " Onus," as it is justly noticed in the Observations by
A Layman, " denotes that which is really what it has been
alledged to be."  But, I would further say, " It denotes
a convincing demonstration of a truth, that had been asserted,
but was disbeUeved or questioned," Thus, Luke, xxiv, 34.
¦Qti YT/ifSv 0 Kupios ONTfiZ x. r. X. — where the admitted ap
pearance to Simon is opposed, by the word ovrug, to the ap
pearance to Mary Magdalen and the women, which they had
reported to the Disciples; but who as yet disbelieved it,
(See Lutken in locum, as cited by Koecher in his Analecta,)
Thus, when Pilate, justifying himself, declared, on the one
hand, Christ to be " a righteous man," the shedding of whose
blood he protested against, — which declaration the Jews posi
tively contradicted, asserting him to be a guilty person whose
life was justly forfeited, — while the question is thus at issue
between Pilate and the Jews, — the Centurion peremptorily
decides in favour of Pilate, ONTOS 6 »v6p»)ffo; aro; Jixaiot r,>.

[ 172 ]
¦nv.  This, I presume, was his first declaration. — After
a paus^ of reflection, or some conversation vdth the ot
fj.ir avrS, he proceeded, I can weU suppose, to assert, as
St. Matthew has recorded, and St. Mark has likewise at
tested, AXuOS; ©eS vlo; m Sro;.  This branch of his as
sertion, though in its degree of evidence and dignity of
testimony strikingly superior, for the reasons justiy assigned
by the Author of the Observations *, St. Luke writing
early, and to Heathens, even to the world at large, did not
at that time choose to record, because it was then hable to
much mis-interpretation and mis-conception.  But I
must here observe, that if St. Matthew had wiitten first,
St. Luke, VFriting later, and supplementally, would not,
I think, have sunk in silence the superior branch ; which
might have seemed to caU its authenticity in question.'^^ 
This secondary and superior branch of the Centurion's
assertion, (AxM; ©eS vlo; m Sro;,) I consider, also, as
unquestionably referential.  From Luke xxii. 52. com
pared with John, xviii. 3. 12, we may see good reason to
* " The title of Son of God," it is well observed, " and in
deed of God himself, had been scandalously prostituted in the
Greek Mythology, Divine honours had been lavishly and
capriciously bestowed, and shamelessly assumed,  Even
the characters of the Deities themselves were very licentious,
and incompatible with what the Centurion must have observed
of Jesus Christ, He (St, Luke) therefore thought, that t»
rank him with such as had no claim to any valuable distinc
tion whatever, and who had disgraced the rank to which they
aspired, was not likely to gain acceptance with rational
well-disposed persons," Observations on the Words the
Centurion uttered, &c, p, 21,

[ 173 ]
suppose that the Centurion assisted at the apprehending of
Christ, and at the whole of his examination in the palace of
the High Priest — and there heard him declare himself the
Son of God. See Matthew, xxvi. 64. Luke, xxii. 70. 71. and
Mark, xiv. 61, 62.  But if the presence of the Centu
rion at this declaration could be doubted, there can be no
doubt but he was present, when the Jews charged Jesus
before Pilate with having made himself the Son of God
(oti EaUTOv uiov rS* ©e5 ettooio-ev) JohnrxL^v. 7-  To this
declaration of our blessed Lord respecting himself, the
Centurion's second and highest assertion, respecting this
most patient Victim of Cruelty, Insult, and bigoted
Fury, then expiring before him, evidentiy refers. 
The sum of the whole is this : — the Centurion heard two
impressive declarations, respecting this criminated and most
e.vtraordinaiy person, early in lus arraingment and exami
nation, and, after stedfestly observing aU the peculiar cir
cumstances of his grievously aggravated sufferings, and his
unexampled demeanour under them, and witnessing the
Divine attestation of aU the stupendous phaenomena ac
companying his death, he asserts his most complete as
surance of the truth of those declarations respecting the
exalted character and super-human nature of the Sufferer;
in whose fate all nature was, apparently, so deeply in
terested.  The earhest Historian of these events, how
ever, from peculiar circumstances of those times, records
only the Centurion's primary assertion, referring to one
of these Declarations ; because the other, though of fer
superior importance, under the ideas and language of the
¦* Rather vlot ©eS. See Middleton in locum.

[ 174 ]
world at that time, was liable to a certain obloquy and
misprision, wholly counteracting its due effect.  The
secondary, supplemental Writer, writing later, when this
more important, declaration stood a fairer chance of being
better understood, and writing more especiaUy to persons
by whom it would be weU understood, records the Centu
rion's second assertion, and records it singly, the pre--
ceding branch of it having been recorded by his Predecessor
in the office of writing a Gospel, We shaU do weU here to ob
serve, that though St. Matthew does not record this particu
lar assertion of the Centurion as recorded by St. Luke, he
throws much Ught on it, by narrating exclusively (c. xxvii.
19, 23.) the two circumstances to which it palpably refers.
—  The Hypothesis of St. Luke's " priority of
writing," I would here say, clears up aU seeming discre
pancy in this point ; and this mode of cleai'ing up such
discrepancy, wliile it is highly satisfectory, tends to cor
roborate the hypothesis of " St. Luke having been the ear
liest writer of a Gospel,"

I wish here to offer a few observations, (in addition to
those which I formerly made, " Discurs, Cons, on the
supposed Evidence, &c." p. 24. &c.) on the account given by
Origen of the Order in which the Gospels were wi-itten,
and the authority upon wliich he relates it, viz. ev roapaJoo-Ei
fiaOojy.  1 there considered ¦srapaJoo-i;, standing singly,
lo signify " mere uncertain tradition ," certainly not
*' good and credible evidence;" indeed, as arguing a want
of all authentic proof, and seeming to say, " I am the

[ 175 1
best and only proof"  I would further now obsei-ve,
that precisely such is Origen's manner of speaking to the
same point, (the Order in which the Gospels were writ
ten,) on another occasion. In his Commentary on St.
John (tom. \i. c. 17.), when explaining the meaning of
certain expressions in aU the four Gospels, and observing
the lesser differences between them, he professes to " be
gin with Matthew, (6? xcn IIAPAAIAOTAI ¦srfwTos tSv XonrSv
ToT; 'E^paiot; ExJtJiwxEvai ro suayfEXiov,) who, AS TRADITION
REPORTS, first wrote and published a Gospel for the He
brews."  And here 1 have to remark, that Origen, in
his writings, has a mode of ascribing somewhat of Autho
rity and Credit to his napaJoo-i;, when he considers it as
advancing at all beyond " mere uncertain tradition.''  >
Thus, speaking of the Epistie to the Hebrews, in his Ho-
mUies * upon that Epistle, he says, " If any Church re
ceive the Epistie as St. Paul's, it is to be commended on
this account, (OY yag EIKH" 01 ap;)(;aToj avJpE; w; TIomXu auT^iv
tsapa^E^uy.aai,) for the Antients did not deUver this down
to us without some authority." Here, I say, OYK EIKH~
TOafaJtJovai rises as much above mere •craoaJiJovost, (as im
plied in EV ffirafaJoo-Ei |U.a0wv,) as the " constantissime perhi-
bentur" of Augustine rises above his mere " perhibentur."
na.§aJoo-if, then, 1 consider as " mere rumour," the au
thority of which is perfectly unknown ; for even the ov^
Euv 'aafoch'^uKoa-t scarcely amounts to any material degree
of Evidence, — since Origen proceeds immediately to say,
¦* See Eusebius, Eccles. Hist. 1. vi. c. 26. : where the only
remaining Fragment of these Homilies is preserved ; being
subjoined to the account there given of the four Gospels,
from Origen's Commentaries on St, Matthew,

[ 176 J
respecting the Epistie to the Hebrews, Tij ^e o y^ai^ai t?i»
jLTaroXm, ro jj.iv aXri9e; ©E05 oiJev, " But who ¦wrote this
Epistle, God only knows ceitainly." 1 submit therefore
to the judgment of the Reader, whether we can consider
that as satisfectory evidence of a fact, which Origen
himself professes to relate, merely ev iffa^vJwa-ii i^aSm, as
""having learned by tradition." 
Some persons, however, have, I believe, inclined to attach
a degree of authority to the ev ¦crapaJoirEi pa.8iuv, and to con
sider it as " strong authentic tradition which-has never
been controverted," because, (as they argue,) " Origen ap
plies the word to the four Gospels, which alone are re
ceived without dispute by the whole Chm'ch of God under
Heaven. — By the same tradition," say they, " by which he
learned the Order ofthe Gospels, he also learned that there
were only four uncontroverted Gospels." I might here be
satisfied dogmatically to assert, that Oiigen certainly learned,
" there were only four uncontroverted Gospels," from
much higher authority, and had better ground for behev
ing it, than that of the IlapaJoo-i;, which related the order
in which they were wiitten.  But let us look to Origen,
as exhibited by Eusebius. Having spoken of Origen's ac
count of the Books of the Old Testament, as given by him
in his Exposition ofthe First Psahn, Eusebius proceeds to
say, Ev d£ Till OTpiuTW Twv Eiff TO Kara JSlarQaTov EVarysXtoy, rov
s)c?c?L>)(7i»ntov ^vXarita^i A.ayova, jLtova rEcra-apa Ettisvai svaFyEXia
fiaflupErai, uSe wwj ypa^uv. wf ev -To-apadotTEi paSwv, 'WEpt ruv
naa-apwv EvafyEXtwv, a ¦Kai [jt.ova a-jafnppytra Eriv ev t^ vito tov
apavov EKKXria-ia Ttt ©Ey, ot* r^r^wrov jjleii yiy^ainai ro Kara tov
«roTE T£XiDV,iv, uVejov ^e a7ro^o^ov Ino-a X^irs MaTOaTov, — x. r. X.
And here I must positively distinguish between the two

[ 177 ]
branches of the paragraph, a xai /xova avavli^^tiVa x. r, A.-—
and In iffjaiTov ^£v ysy^aTrlai k. ,. X. The former, (which I
certainly should put in a parenthesis,) is, I decidedly
think, the xaiw/ ExxXna-iarixof, which Origen is previously
described by Eusebius as {tpvXarlut) " observantiy main
taining," in speaking of these four Exclusive Gospels. 
The latter oti w^Stov |U,£v yiy^a'trlai X. r. X., is what he learned
EV raagaSoa-Ei.  Sm'ely we cannot safely, or prudentiy,
attribute to both the same degree of authority.  That
there were " only fom- established, inconti'overtible Gos
pels," he (Origen) learned, we cannot doubt, from the
authoritative declaration (xavm) of every established
Christian Church, with which, in his various travels, and
frequent changes of residence, he had any communica
tion, and which he concluded to be one of the first Rules,
or Points of Doctrine of the whole Christian Church un
der Heaven, m; vto rov n^amv iKKXtiinai rS 0eS. This he
refers to, in a parenthesis of importance, (for the figure
parenthesis is not confined to trivial explanation,) as the
great, known, unquestionable truth ; at the same time
that he speaks of other circumstances respecting the
Gospels from " mere tradition." There is unquestionably
a manifest distinction between Kaviuv and Ila^a^oa-ic ; and
it forcibly strikes me that Origen received the great
TRUTH, which he parenthetically refers to, as the former,
whUe what he proceeds to relate, respecting the Order of
the Gospels, he gives expressly as the latter. And so. It
seems clear to me, Eusebius understood him,  ."Uy^ i
Respecting certain circumstances of the Books o^ t]^™^
Testament, Origen, it appears to me, has left us. informal
tion supported by Evidence of three different degrees. — -^

[ 178 ]
first. What he communicates, 1J5 ev isa^a^oa-ti ^a^m, is of
the sUghtest kind, mere traditionary . report. Secondly,
What he recommends to our credence, with an OT yaj
EIKH oi «f;^«Voi av^fE; •aa^a^E^oixaa-i certainly rises above
this, and may be understood tradition, so far authenticated,
as, coming from credible reporters in a very early age. 
But, thirdly, when he relates any thing in positive terms,
as admitted, and considered as incontrovertible, by every
Christian Church then existing, he gives what I would
caU the highest degree of Evidence, It becomes (jckvuiv)
an irrefragable Truth, vouched by the Testimony of the
Christian Church in every part under Heaven, and handed
down, indeed laid down, as an Article of Faith, in that
Church, from the time of their first accepting as incon-
trovertibly authoritative these four exclusive Gospels.
 Hence, when I again consider what Origen has said,
on the point in question, respecting the Order in which
the Gospels were written, — and, especiaUy, when I com
pare it with his manner of speaking in other instances,
upon occEisions very simUar, I am strongly confirmed in
my former opinion, that " Origen furnishes no (satisfac
tory) Evidence, that St. Matthew's Gospel was the first
which was vmtten,"

Since the pubUcation of my " Discursory Considera
tions on the supposed Evidence, &c, that St, Matthew's
Gospel was the first written," I have been fevoured, by a
learned Friend, with some Observations, on the translation
which I had there hazarded (p. 97) of the words of Papias
n'fjUEVEuo-E J' eaim, 105 ,)J'uvbto licaro;, and which I endeavoured

[ 179 ']
to justify in a note of some prolixity. These close and able
Observations I am glad to have an opportunity of offering to
the public ; as they materiaUy confirm, and fiirther support
the construction which I ventured to suggest of the pas
sage in question. I copy from my Friend's 1,/etter, 'now
before me.  ¦  " When' a' word
admits of different interpretations, the feirest criterion of
its precise signification in any particular sentence' is an
appeal 'to the context; arid to observe what the sense evi
dentiy requires. At the first view, aftd according to the
general idiom of the Greek language, the usual' interpre
tation of the sentence in question, (ijajtiEvEBs-e J'- avra,. »V
ri^maro karo5') taking it abstractedly, would appear indis
putable ; I should not hesitate to assert that izaro; was the
nominative case to the verb ti'^fisvEuo-E, and that the English
would be : " And every one interpreted them as he was
able." But when I carry my enquiries a littie further,
and examine the meaning of the Author, connecting this
sentence with the preceding, I am led to* draw conclusions
(understanding it according to the common translation)
to the disadvantage of Papias, as having written non
sense, — or of St, Matthew, as having done a useless
thing.  Your interpretation therefore appears to me to
be perfectiy defensible.  There is one
method, by which the signification you have attached to
the sentence wiU be rendered stiU more obvious, if we
could take a hberty with the punctuation ; and this I
think may be done, by taking into consideration the anti
thetical meaning of the particles /mev and Je, MarSaTos MEN
S» 'nS^ai^i SiaXt-KTui ra Xoyia STNEIPA^'ATO, 'HPMENET£E
A' avra- w; ¦nlmara Ixaroi. " Matthew indeed composed

[ 180 ]
the divine discourses in the Hebrew language, but he
translated them ; thus every one was able xai avro;
EfpuvEUEtv. Instances of 105 bearing the signification of ira;
are innumerable. Thus, Homer, II. A. 245. ©. 477.
And I should feel incUned to translate a quotation ft'om
Xenophon, in your note, in the same manner, rendering
u; by sic, nS' u; yhv koIeXei'^ieIo ava^x°'> Neque sic, &C,
Lennep's etymology also of w;, heing nothing else than
the dat, plur, 015 quibus (scU, modisj, bears on the same
point : K^ij,ESEva-E y auTa" w; ri^vvaro litaro?, "but he translated
them, by which means (or thusj each, &c. &c. 
Respecting the verb ^uva^ai, 1 would lay the greatest stress
on the reflective signification you have given it ; in con
firmation of which Kuster says, " Neque dubium est,
quin in verbis ikojjm, Juva/Aai, Emrai^ai, &c, aliisque simi-
Ubus, eadem vis significationis medioe insit ; quamvis id
hodie vis demonstrari queat,"

Lately published, and to be had of the Publishers
of this Work:
DISCURSORY CONSIDERATIONS on ST.
LUKE'S PREFACE and other Circumstances of
his GOSPEL ; in Three Letters to a Friend, from
a Country Clergyman. Svo. Price 3^, 6d.
DISCURSORY CONSIDERATIONS on the
supposed EVIDENCE ofthe EARLY FATHERS,
that ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL was the first
vrritten. By a Country Clergyman. Svo. Price
2s. 6d.
A LETTER to GRANVILLE SHARP, Esq.
respecting his REMARKS on thfe TWO LAST
PETITIONS of the LORD'S PRAYER, from a
Country Clergyman. 12mo. Price 1*.
ALSO,
A LETTER to the RIGHT REVEREND the
LORD BISHOP of LONDON, humbly suggesting
&. further Consideration of a Passagie in the
GOSPEL of ST. MATTHEW. Svo. Price 2*. S€.

J, NicBou and Son, Printers, Red Lion Passage, Fleet Stre<|r

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08837 4856

^v j.;^/„-r

'- .'t-«s, ,4J,',

Sifc''.-';

¦..'i.i;-,.-,/t .'-'.¦'¦.