that Barnabas was a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus; yet it seems very strange, that he did not know, at least as well as Luke, the rank, character, and religious persuasion of Gamaliel, and that the name Barnabas, meant the son of cousolation. Of what use was it to tell a Jew, that Arimathea was a city of Judæa? that Nazareth and Capernaum were towns of Galilee, and that the country of the Gadarenes was over against Galilee? or an inhabitant of Jerusalem, that every body in that city knew how Judas had purchased a field with the reward of his iniquity; that he soon after destroyed himself in that very piece of ground; and that it obtained the name Aceldama, for that reason. And above all, to give a Greek explanation of that word to an inhabitant of that city, as though his own language was less intelligible to such an one, than Greek? Or, to inform a Jewish high-priest, that the mount called Olivet, was a sabbath-day's journey; and that the village called Emmaus was about three score furlongs from Jerusalem; that the feast of unleavened bread was called the Passover, and that the paschal lamb was to be killed on that day; and that there was a certain custom, by which," of necessity," the Roman governor must release a certain prisoner to the Jews at that feast, "whomsoever they would?”

It hasbeen thought, that Theophilus was of Antioch, and, adds Michaelis, a bishop of that city. This too, notwithstanding he has informed us, that the Greek name Theophilus agrees likewise with the opinion, that Luke wrote in a Grecian city, he pronounces to be a mistake, and says, that it probably arose from a confusion of St. Luke's Theophilus, with the Theophilus who was Bishop of Antioch in the second century. As the professor has not told us who made this mistake, why should we not suspect it to be a mistake of his own making, and for the purpose of giving himself an opportunity of telling us, that there was a bishop of that name at Antioch in the second century? By the manner in which he has done this, it is however observable, he has left us to conclude, that Theophilus, though not a bishop, could not have been of Antioch. But was there indeed no person of this name at Antioch in St. Luke's time? As this Evangelist is supposed by some to have been of Antioch, in which city the Greek language was, to say the least, most fashionable, and the Greek name Theophilus, as the professor obVol. XI. Charchm. Mag. Sept. B b

serves

serves, agrees likewise with the opinion that Luke wrote ina Grecian city, why should it not be thought still credible, that Theophilus lived at or near Antioch? Or rather why should it not be thought more likely, that he lived in or near Antioch, than in Macedonia. or Bythynia, or Upper Egypt, or even in Judæa?

Kay." That Theophilus was not a Christian (says Michaelis) but either a Jew or an Heathen, when St. Luke addressed his gospel to him, I think not improbable, because St. Luke in his preface, uses the word xarxes, from which it appears, that Theophilus had then a very imperfect knowledge of the history of Christ; and the expression used by Luke" among us;" that is, among us Christians; seems to imply, that Theophilus was at that time not of the number," p. 237. And again at 253, he says, "We are not certain that Theophilus was a Christian." But how does it appear from St. Luke's having used the word · axons, that Theophilus had a very imperfect knowledge of Christianity? If this word implies nothing more than viva voce instruction, will it follow that he had not been previously brought acquainted with most, if not all the particulars of our Lord's ministry? Apollos, it seems, obtained his knowledge of the way of the Lord by the same means, and yet it is said that he, living in the spirit, spake and taught the things of the Lord angiwç. And though it seems, he was not, at first, so well acquainted with every particular as he should be, yet Aquila and Priscilla, by pursuing the same mode of instruction, made him perfectly acquainted with the way of God. But does this word never imply any thing more than instruction instilled into the ear? What then can be the meaning of St. Paul, 2 Rom. 18, where we find he gives a Jew credit, for having obtained by the catechetical way of learning, so complete a knowledge of the law of Moses, as to think himself much superior in that respect to all around him? Does he not appear to intimate that this supposed learned lawyer had obtained his imagined superiority in this respect by a close attention to the written law of Moses? Why then should we think that this word means nothing more than oral report in this case? That Theophilus knew that many written accounts of our Lord's ministry were in circulation, we may pretty safely conclude, from the words with which St. Luke begins his preface that it cannot with any certainty be inferred from the expression "among us," used by Luke,

that

that Theophilus was not of the number, is very evident; that he had read some of those early accounts, Michaelis himself has admitted in the page where he endeavours, to account for Luke's motive in writing: he there says, "We must conclude, therefore, that his intention was to correct the inaccuracies of the accounts which were then in circulation, and to deliver to Theophilus a true and genuine document, in order to silence several idle stories, which might have prejudiced Theophilus against the Christian religion." That he took it for granted that Theophilus was not so far prejudiced against the Christian religion, as to refuse to read what he was about to write, is very clear; that Luke wrote to assure his honourable friend of the infallibility ra hoy in which he had been catechised, cannot be denied, and that the word Ayos is used by Luke himself, to denote a written treatise, we learn from 1 Acts i.

Of the motive which induced St. Luke to write a Gospel.

Professor Michaelis, speaking of those many Gospels which are adverted to by St. Luke, says, "At the time when St. Luke undertook to write a history of the transactions of Christ, various but uncertain Gospels were already in circulation. These Gospels, probably owing to the circumstance, that the accounts which they contained were uncertain, have either totally perished, or are preserved only in a few scattered, and even interpolated fragments. It is certain that they were never received by the Christian Church as credible and authentic documents; that they were never deemed worthy to be read in the public service, nor admitted into the catalogue of the New Testament. Whether internal or external evidence contributed chiefly to their rejection; whether their accounts, which have the appearance of fable rather than history, and not seldom contradict each other, rendered them suspected; or whether an opposition on the part of the Apostles and other eye-witnesses prevented them from being generally received, is at present difficult to be determined, because we have no christian. historian of the first century." Vol. iii. part i. p. 2, 3. And again, at p. 145, he says, "In this preface St. Luke, at least as I understand him, casts an indirect censure on the Gospels which had been written before his own." By these extracts it appears, that the professor could not bring any specific charge against those early Gospels; and by the

Bb2

last,

last, that he was not altogether certain that others would be ready to adopt his opinion concerning the purport of St. Luke's preface to his Gospel. In sect. 8. chap. vi. p. 267, however, speaking of the motive which induced St. Luke to write a Gospel, he neither expresses himself so indecisively concerning the contents of those Gospels, and the cause of their having fallen into disrepute, nor concerning the purport of St. Luke's preface: and with regard to the latter point, he does not appear to allow others that liberty of opinion concerning it, which he has in the passage above quoted. In the beginning of that section he thus expresses himself:-" He there (that is, St. Luke in his preface) assigns the motive which induced him to send to Theophilus an authentic narrative of the miracles and resurrection of Christ, which, to use his own words, was the following Επειδήπες πολλοί επιχείρησαν αναταξασθαι διήγησιν περι των πεπληροφορημένων εν ημιν πραγμάτων. To the accounts of these " many, ," he certainly must have had some objections to make, for no man would reason thus*: since several persons have delivered accounts of Christ on which perfect reliance may be placed, I have likewise thought proper to write the history of Christ. We must conclude, therefore, that his intention was to correct the inaccuracies of the accounts which were then in circulation, and to deliver to Theophilus a true and genuine document, in order to silence several idle stories, which might have prejudiced Theophilus against the Christian Religion." This he has said in the beginning of that section; and towards the end of it, we find, he has made use of still more decisive and more impressive language, both concerning the contents of those early Gospels and St. Luke's motive for writing. He there says, "It is true, that the accounts contained in the histories, which it was Luke's object to correct, were not wholly fabulous, and the mere inventions of the authors who recorded them: but they contained so much falsehood, intermixed with truth, that a correction of them was absolutely necessary." In these two extracts, we perceive, he takes upon him to

* By the professor's own account, St. John and St. Mark did reason thus, the title of sect. vi. chap. 7. of the same volume, from which this extract is made, is this, "St. Johu had read the three first Gospels before he wrote his own:" that he approved those Gospels, he has made appear in that section by the testimony of Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius. And at p. 220, he says, "It may be said, therefore, that St. Mark used the Gospel by St. Luke," &c.

tell us precisely what opinion we ought to entertain concerning those early productions, and is no longer at a loss 10 specify their defects: he tells us in the former, that we must conclude that our evangelist wrote "in order to silence several idle stories which might have prejudiced Theophilus against the Christian Religion;" and, in the latter, that the histories, which it was Luke's object to correct,"contained so much falsehood, intermixed with truth, that a correction of them was absolutely necessary." This is a very heavy charge, and, if true, it accounts at once for the short existence of those early narratives. But what has the professor to tell us further concerning those short-lived productions? At p. 94, investigating the cause of the remarkable verbal agreement, perceivable in the three first of those Gospels now extant, he says, "This remarkable verbal agreement I am unable to explain on any other than the following hypothesis :-before the three first Gospels were written, or at least before St. Matthew's Gospel had been translated into Greek, there existed several apocryphal Gospels, to which St. Luke alludes in his preface, and of which it was his object to correct the inaccuracies. But when the accounts which they contained were accurate, St. Luke as well as St. Mark, and the translator* of St. Matthew, abided by the expressions which they found, as they were regardless of the ornaments of style. It is likewise possible that St. Mark and St. Luke followed these early accounts in the arrangement of the recorded facts, and that hence arose the deviation from St. Matthew's Gospel, which has occasioned so much perplexity among harmonists. Another argument for the opinion that the evangelists made use of written documents, is, that St. Luke, who when left to himself was able to write good Greek, has sometimes such harsh Hebraisms, as he would hardly have used unless he had drawn from written documents."

Notwithstanding the very bad opinion which the primitive church, by the professor's account, entertained

* Is it at all credible, that the translator of St. Matthew's Gospel would have adopted the expressionss of such inaccurate, and so much less credible historians in preference to those used by him whose work he had undertaken to translate? If the professor be right in what he says here, can he be right too is what he says at p. 154. "Besides as the Greek translation is really half Hebrew, it is manifest that it is a very elose one." Surely this has too much the appearance of a plain contra diction.