Jews and Syrians, called Salaosa, is termed by St. Luke, ch. v. 1, 2. viii. 22, 23. very properly λvn. In ch. iv. 38. he terms the fever, with which St. Peter's mother-in-law was afflicted, TUPETOS μεyas, on which expression Wetstein's Note may be consulted. The phrase in nμɛpav ays used by St. Luke, ch. xxiv. 21. occurs particularly in the writings of Galen *. In describing the blindness of Elymas, Acts xiii. 11. which was to last only for a time, he uses the proper word axλve, on which Kypke may be consulted. In general, he wrote much better Greek, than the other Evangelists, especially in the Acts of the Apostles, of which I shall give examples in a following section.

That St. Luke accompanied St. Paul to Rome, and remained with him there during some time, we learn from Acts xxviii. 13-16. Col. iv. 14. and Philem. 24. From Rome he is said to have travelled into Africa, and to have preached the Gospel in Egypt, a subject which will be considered hereafter.

SECTION II.

Examination of the question, whether St. Luke's Gospel, though it contains upon the whole a very credible history, is perfectly free from inaccuracies.

ST. LUKE'S intercourse with the Apostles, and other eye-witnesses to the transactions of Christ, render him a very credible historian, as he assures us, that he has diligently inquired into the whole history, and traced up the several facts to the fountain head". But the diligence with which he instituted his inquiries 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 himself 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 Gospels, 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 St. Luke.

In ch. xviii. 35. St. Luke relates that Christ restored a blind man to sight, as he was approaching toward Jericho whereas both St. Matthew and St. Mark relate, that this miracle was performed after Christ's departure from Jericho. His account of the spices prepared by the women for the embalming of the body of Christ, ch. xxiii. 56. and their bringing these spices to the grave, ch. xxiv. 1. it is difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile with what St. John has related on this occasion". In the short extract which St. Luke has given from the sermon on the mount, he has inverted one of the precepts delivered by Christ. According to Matth. v. 40. Christ gave the following command, Τῳ θέλοντι σοι κριθήναι, και χιτώνα σε λαβειν, αφες αυτή και To uaTiOn: but on the contrary in St. Luke's Gospel, ch. vi. 29, the command is given thus: Aπo T8 ALOνTOG σε το ιματιον και τον χιτώνα μη κωλύης. To those who are unacquainted with the Jewish laws, the form in which

>See what I have said on this subject in my History of the Resurrection'

St. Luke has recorded this precept, will appear to be the most natural, because an outward garment (iariov) must be taken off before the under garment (XITWV). But Christ alluded in this instance to a Jewish law, according to which a creditor could summon a debtor before a court of justice, and if he were unable to pay, could claim from him his under garment: but the outward garment was sacred, and could not be seized, even if the wearer had pledged it as surety for a debt. The meaning therefore of the precept, as recorded by St. Matthew, is this: that if any one has a claim upon us, we should rather give up even more than the laws require, than dispute that, which can with justice be demanded. This is a very rational precept: but in the form in which St. Luke has delivered it, and in the connection in which he has related it, the precept implies that not even robbers ought to be resisted, and hence objections have been made to the Christian religion. But the objections will cease to be of weight, if we admit, that, St. Luke misunderstood the precept. According to the relation of St. Matthew, ch. xviii. 21, 22. when St. Peter demanded of Christ how often he should forgive his brother, who offended him, whether seven times, he received for answer 'seventy times seven' by which Christ intended to say in general terms, that we should be ready at all times to be reconciled with those, who had offended us. But St. Luke, ch. xvii. 3, 4. has recorded the precept in the following manner: If he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent, thou shalt forgive him.' Now seven, it is true, is much less than seventy times seven, but the addition of 'in a day,' increases the force of the expression in such a manner as to produce a very incomprehensible doctrine. For, if a man offend me seven times a day, and comes to me each time to say that he repents, how is it possible that his repentance should

Mosaic Law, Vol. III. sect. 150. No. 1. and Exod. xxii. 25, 26.

be sincerc, when he continually repeats the offence in the very same day? The addition therefore of rns nuepac is certainly without authority, and St. Luke must have derived his information in this instance, not from the Apostles, but from one of those apocryphal Gospels, of which he speaks in his preface 3. Again, the account which St. Luke has given, ch. xix. 13. of the sum of money, which a certain prince entrusted to ten of his subjects, to be employed on interest during his absence, appears to be not perfectly accurate. This sum, ac cording to St. Luke, was ten Minas. Now the Attic Mina, according to Eisenschmidt, was fifteen ounces Cologne weight; in silver therefore it was two and twenty rix-dollars, and in gold between an hundred and twentyfour and an hundred and twenty-five ducats. The whole treasure was at the utmost twelve hundred and fifty ducats. Even if we understood the Hebrew Mina, which, according to Eisenschmidt, was one pound thirteen ounces, and reckon the Mina in gold, the whole sum will not exceed two thousand four hundred and fifty ducats: which is really despicable, considered as a royal treasure in the East, and in the age of the wealthy Herods, from whose history the whole parable was borrowed. A similar parable is related by St. Matthew, ch. xxv. 14. not of a sovereign, but of a private man: and even this person delivers to one of his servants only not less than five talents. The word uva therefore, used by St. Luke must be a mistake, which probably arose in the following manner. The Hebrew word, if pointed signifies a portion" or 'part,' but if pointed, it signifies a Mina. Christ probably used the word in the former sense, and meant to say, that the king delivered to ten of his subjects the ten portions of his treasure. It ought therefore to have been rendered by μepoç: but in consequence of a wrong punctuation, it was improperly rendered by pva 4.

SECTION III.

Whether St. Luke is the same Person as Lucius mentioned Acts xiii. 1. Rom. xvi. 21.

DR. HEUMANN in his Note to Acts xiii. 1. has endeavoured by several very probable arguments to shew that Lucius of Cyrene, who is called a prophet, Acts xiii. 1. and who is mentioned by St. Paul, Rom. xvi. 21. is no other than the Evangelist St. Luke. Lardner d is inclined to adopt the same opinion, and Wetstein says in positive terms, that Lucas and Lucius are only different names of the same person. If this opinion were founded on fact, we should derive from it material advantages: for we should not only acquire a more complete knowledge of our Evangelist, but might ascribe to him, without scruple, divine inspiration, because Lucius of Cyrene is expressly called a prophet, and is said to have been selected, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, by the Apostle St. Paul to the ministry.

But there lie difficulties in the way of this opinion, which appear to me to be insurmountable. That Lucius was a Jew, but St. Luke an heathen by birth, is an argument on which I will not insist, because the deduction, by which St. Luke's heathen origin is shewn, is not absolutely decisive. The material objection is the following. St. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Ro

d

Supplement to the Credibility of the Gospel History, Vol. I. p. 250: Lardner likewise observes that some entertained this opinion as long ago as the time of Origen.

e Acts xiii. 1, 2.

f Lucius was certainly a Jew, because St. Paul calls him ov yans, Rom. xvi. 21.

See the first section of this chapter, Note x.