Divinity upon him, at the recommendation of archbishop Sharp; and soon after the same prelate, in the name of the church of Scotland, presented him with the edition of the Councils, in 18 volumes folio, published by Labbeus and Cassartius, at Paris, as an acknowledgement for the services be had done that church." (To be concluded in our next.)

MISCELLANIES.

FOR THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S MAGAZINE.

REMARKS ON THE PREFACE TO ST. LUKE'S GOSPEL.

E

(Continued from our last, page 32.)

ΔΟΞΕ και εμοι. Αfter having introduced himself to our attention, in company with others, in each of the preceding verses, our Evangelist here speaks of himself alone; and apparently as having been induced to engage in writing a Gospel by the same motive as the many; that is, not in compliance with any external influence, either divine or human, but entirely of his own free-will. Edie, &c. says he, doge na . Had he written by the instigation of the Holy Spirit, as some contend, or under the direction of St. Paul, as others say, can it be supposed that he would have expressed himself thus? But though both these opinions have had their advocates, yet both have been stiffly controverted. Origen, we have already seen, held the former opinion. And professor Michaelis, on the contrary, not only represents this as erroneous, but adduces this very expression of Luke to prove, that he did not consider himself as at all indebted to Paul for his information; and that he was not actuated by any supernatural influence. His denial of Luke's inspiration is the more remarkable, as, by so doing, he inadvertently places Luke among those who are said by Origen επιχείρησαι, merely because they were not instigated by the Holy Spirit; notwithstanding he remarks that Origen considered this word as implying a tacit censure, and as being applied by Luke himself, in that sense, to the many. At p. 230, vol. iii. he has expressed himself on the sub

ject

ject of inspiration very explicitly. "St. Luke's intercourse with the Apostles, and other eye-witnesses of the transactions of Christ, render him a very credible historian, as he assures us, that he has deligently enquired into the whole history, and traced up the several facts to the fountain-head. But the diligence with which he instituted his enquiries, did not necessarily exempt him from the danger of making some few mistakes, unless he wrote under the influence of divine inspiration. Now St. Luke not only lays no claim to supernatural assistance, but, on the contrary, grounds the fidelity of his history, merely on the accuracy of his own researches. I have already shewn in the first volume of this introduction, that instead of being losers we should be real gainers, if we considered St. Luke as a mere human historian; because the objections which have been made to the contradictions in the Gospel, affect St. Luke more than St. Matthew and St. John. He was neither an Apostle, nor an eye-witness to the facts which he has recorded in his Gospel; and therefore when he differs from an Apostle and eye-witness, we must conclude, since two accounts which vary from each other, cannot both of them be accurate, that the inaccuracy is on the part of Luke." This doctrine he indirectly maintains again at p. 230, where by way of controverting the opinion that Paul dictated what Luke wrote, he has appealed to the very words under consideration as an unquestionable proof, that Luke had no pretension to any extraordinary assistance, divine or human. His words in that place are, "It has been supposed by several persons, that St. Luke not only wrote his Gospel at the request of Paul, but that Paul even dictated what Luke wrote. This notion took its rise from a false interpretation of a passage in St. Paul's epistle to the Romans: and that St. Luke wrote of his own accord and of his own authority, appears from the expression d'o, which he has used in the preface to his Gospel."

Origen and Michaelis then are of quite opposite opinions, with regard to the inspiration of St. Luke's gospel; and it is a matter not to be disregarded by those who wish to know whether Origen really understood the word egg as implying a censure: for if the professor be right with regard to the former point, and, Origen's interpretation of the word ixigo, according to the professor's report, be accurate, that word must,

επιχείρησαν

of

of course, be applicable, in his sense, to St. Luke himself, and therefore ought not to be understood as implying a censure.

In short, if Luke "laid no claim to inspiration himself; but, on the contrary, grounded the fidelity of his history merely on the accuracy of his own researches ;" and wrote of his own accord and his own authority," he would hardly have presumed to ceasure those early writers, only because they did not write by the instigation of the Holy Spirit; and if "he was neither an Apostle nor eye-witness to the facts which he has recorded," nor even "one of the circumcision," as the professor has rendered very credible, it is not at all likely that he would have taken upon him to censure all those that wrote before him, though only "tacitly" or "indirectly*" and especially if Philip, or Silas, or any of those alluded to by Paul in the epistle to the Ephesians, had been of the party.

Пagnxoxo. Does the Evangelist mean by this, that he had been careful to investigate all the reports that had been handed about, without having personally attended on those who had been witnesses of the facts? Or, does he mean to say, that he had actually made it his business to attend one or more of those who had been witnesses of every one of the facts from first to last †? Of this more presently.

Awes. If the Evangelist really intended to say, that he wrote of" his own accord and his own authority," as the expression doge n'apo may be thought to imply, he would not be very consistent with himself, if he meant to intimate by this, that he derived "a perfect understanding of all things§" from above, as some, it seeins, would have it.

Πασιν,

* Sane de pseudapostolis si locutus fuisset Lucas, nescio an tam leniter eos perstrinxisset. I. CASAUBON.

† Paulo aliter verbo wagnov in sunili sententia utitur Josephus contra Apionem, libro primo, δέον εκείνο γίνωσκειν οτι δεν “τ αλλοις παραδοσιν πράξεων αληθινων υπιχνέμενον, αυτόν επιτασθαι ταυτα προτές εαν ακριβως η παρηκολεθηκοτοις γεγονασιν, η παρα των εδοτων πυνθανόμενον, quo ex loco intelligimus quid hic significat: ubi transfertur ad animum, quum proprie dicatur de corpore. I. CASAUBON.

Res ipsa ostendit quomodo sit hoc adverbium accipiendum in hoc loco, cum Lucas, multo altius quam cæteri Evangelista hanc historiam sit exorsus. BEZA.

1

§ The Evangelist here beginning his narrative higher than St. Mat thew

Πασιν. Where shall we look for the substantive to which St. Luke intended to annex this word? In the verse immediately preceding, where we find the autoTa and the vangeras inentioned? Or, in the verse before that, where we find the wayata mentioned? To which of these nouns does this adnoun properly belong? to the nearer or more remote? Does not the participle, by which it is governed (especially if the meaning affixed to it by Casaubon be right) seem to indicate, that the Evangelist had made it his business to obtain a personal interview with some witness or witnesses of every fact from the beginning? Indeed, how could his honourable friend have been satisfied that his narrative was so correct, as to be relied on with safety, if he had not been assured that Luke had obtained an interview with some witness or witnesses of every fact recorded by hin? If St. Luke and Theophilus lived in the same place, or even in the same country, remote from the Holy Land, and the former did not go abroad to obtain information, one cannot easily see how he could have been so much more fortunate in his enquiries than Theophilus, or any other of his neighbours.

Пagnorennots warn axgbust. "Plainly signifies," says Doddridge, "that accuracy of investigation on which the perfect understanding of his subject was built." If waon ought to be understood as meant of the aurora in the verse preceding (immediately) instead of gayata, which is more remote, axibws ought, perhaps, to be understood as belonging to yea rather than to wao in which connexion, we are told, it is found in the Louvain MS. being therein separated from 2011 by a comma. If this be the right way of reading these words, the Evangelist's meaning may, as the same judicious critic, to whom we are indebted for the above information concerning the Louvain MS. has suggested, have, very probably, thew or St. Mark had done, even from the promise inade to Zacharias of the Baptist, or forerunner of our Lord, I think it more reasonable to adhere to our translation, and not to lay the authority of St. Luke's Gospel upon uncertainties; that is, by making araber mean gavober.

WHITBY.

* St. Luke's intercourse with the Apostles and other eye-witnesses to the transactions of Christ, says Michaelis, render him a very credible historian, as he assures us, that he has diligently inquired into the whole history, and traced up the facts to the fountain head. MICH. vol. iii. p. 230.

† Dion Halicarn. at the beginning of his history, says,—oλy, naι εδε αυτα διεπεδας μένως εδε ακριβως, αλλ' εκ των επιτυκοντων ακεςμάτων suaras, compiled neither with care nor accuracy, but from common reports.

been

been, "It seems good to me, to write exactly in detail to you;" or, rather, it may be, "to give a full account of every piece of information which I have been able either to procure, or have thought it necessary to collect for you." That this is not very unlikely to have been the Evangelist's meaning, may be inferred from the sense in which he has used angs in his other treatise, where, giving Theophilus an account of Apollos, he says, that " he spake and taught the things of the Lord axgbws and that Priscilla and Aquila, on hearing him speak in a synagogue at Ephesus, took him and expounded to him the way of God angesegov.

1

Kabins. The learned cannot agree about the meaning of this word. Some think it implies, that Luke arranged every occurrence in exact chronological order; others do not care to admit this, and chiefly because St. Luke's arrangement does not appear to tally with that of St. Matthew: however, they who refuse to acknowledge that he placed every thing in due order, are far from being equally pertinacious in their refusal. That he made good his promise, by placing the principal parts of his subject in regular sequence, is allowed on all sides. Professor Michaelis has endeavoured to shew, that another order, beside that of time, may have been intended by this word. At p. 11. part 1. vol. 111. that author has

*Facit vero hic locus, ut harmonia Evangelistarum scribenda, rectionem ordinem servari putem, si in iis quæ habent communia, reliqui ad Lucam potius accommodentur, quam Lucas ad cæteros. BEZA.

It is chiefly on the authority of this clause that Mr. Le Clerc, and many other modern harmonizers, have thought (as Beza also did) that all the other gospels are to be reduced to the order of St. Luke, whenever they differ from it: a conclusion which, I apprehend, for reasons that shall afterwards be given at large, to be an occasion of many errors, and particularly injurious to the character of St. Matthew. I would only here observe, that the foundation of it is very precarious; since it is evident, this Evangelist might, with great propriety, be said to have given an orderly account of the history of Christ, as the leading facts are in their due series, though some particulars are transposed. DODDRIDGE.

It being certain that St. Luke in his Gospel, doth not give us Christ's miracks, sermons, and journies, in that order of time in which they were done and spoken, it remains, that when he promised to write nabens, in order, we understand this of Christ's conception, birth, circumcision, baptism, preaching, death, resurrection, and ascension, of which he truly writes in order; or that he would write to him first of what those eye-witnesses had delivered to him of Christ, and then of what these ministers had done in the propagation of the Gospel, as in the Acts he doth. WHITBY.

Vol. XI. Churchm. Mag. Aug. 1806

N

given