ministry as he himself seems to have been,) and very different from that assigned by professor Michaelis.

Should it have so happened, that our Evangelist had written his Gospel after any of those three, whose works have been preserved by the church; (and that he may have written after the publication of St. Matthew's hebrew Gospel, Michaelis has admitted ;) and that he had seen their Gospels, would not his own have been, even in that case, a very valuable performance? And would the credibility of their Gospels have been at all diminished by it? If St. Matthew wrote only eight years after the Ascension, though he be supposed to have written in Hebrew, how could his Gospel have escaped the attention of our Evangelist, while he was collecting his materials among the eye-witnesses? And if Theophilus was a Jewish high-priest, what need would there have been, in that case, of St. Luke's Gospel? Could he not have ventured to place perfect reliance on the report of an eye-witness? Or rather, could he not have more safely relied on the report of one of his own countrymen, who, he might have easily known, had been an eye-witness of the facts which he had recorded, than he could on the hearsay report of a foreigner speaking to him in a language less familiar to him at least, if not unintelligible? And if Theophilus was not a Jew, and those many wrote in Hebrew, according to the professor's supposition, it is not very likely that he could have read them. However, should it have so happened, that Theophilus either had read them himself, or had been brought acquainted with their contents by some one more conversant than himself with the Hebrew language, what reason have we to think, that St. Luke must have had objections to make to them, and must have thought it necessary to write because perfect reliance could not be placed on them? If a perfect reliance could not be placed on some of those Gospels, would it follow, that no credit at all would be due to any of them? Or, if some of those many first Gospel-writers, of whom St. Luke speaks, had even been inaccurate in stating some of the facts which they had received from the eye-wit nesses of the Logos, would it follow that they were all so far inaccurate in most cases, some in one case and some in another, as that those several occurrences, which they attempted to record, should, in general, have had

the

the appearance of idle stories? Would not St. Luke in that case have animadverted a little on the indiscreet zeal of those injudicious, not to say injurious, friends to the cause, instead of mentioning them without the least appearance of censure or disapprobation? Are the four which still remain to be relied on with perfect safety? Not to mention various verbal discrepancies, what shall we think of those apparent and supposed real contradictions of which the prófessor writes in this same vol.? Had, however, those many histories been so reprehensible as the professor would have it thought at page 267, would St. Luke have been a proper person to take upon him to correct their inaccuracies and misrepresentations, and to give a more credible account of things? Can it be supposed, that all those who lived near the scene of action, were conversant with the eyewitnesses, and had easy access to them, almost at any time, for several years, were less inclined or less qualified to give a true account of our Lord's ministry, than a gentile, who, by the professor's account, belonged to another country, and who, by his account too, may not have visited Judæa till he went thither with Paul?

Should any one, to evade the force of what is here said, have recourse to the less probable supposition, that those many lived out of Judæa and wrote in the Greek language, still it may be doubted, whether St. Luke's report would have had sufficient weight, with those who knew nothing of him, to do away the prejudices which may be supposed to have been excited in the minds of such persons, as well as in that of Theophilus, by the inaccuracies and idle stories or falsehoods of those more intelligent among the first propagators of Christianity.

After having given us to understand, that we ought not to entertain any manner of doubt of those many first Gospel-writers having, one and all, inserted in their narratives "6 so much falsehood, that a correction of them was absolutely necessary;" and that St. Luke was induced by that very consideration, to undertake to write such an account of our Lord's ministry, as might be safely relied on, the professor would intimate, that those numerous falsehoods "may have prejudiced Theophilus against the Christian religion." Had the premises been duly established, it would surely have been no great wonder, if, not only Theophilus, but every X X 2

man

man of common sense, had been prejudiced against the Christian faith. But before the professor attempted to represent Theophilus as an apostate from the faith, he ought to have produced a satisfactory reason, why he should not be considered as one of those, who, together with Luke, were fully persuaded of the truth of the reports concerning Jesus of Nazareth. And, if he could have made it appear, that he was not to be accounted of that number, he ought surely to have considered, whether there may not be other ways of accounting for St. Luke's motive in writing less dishonourable, if not to Theophilus, at least to the whole body of first Christian writers. As our Evangelist has neither expressly informed us, that his honourable friend was dissatisfied with the Chrisțian religion, nor that the accounts of the many were in any degree exceptionable, nor given us to understand that be wrote chiefly for the purpose of correction, but on the contrary appears to have suggested, that he did so by way of confirming preceding reports; why should we be required to acquiesce in the professor's arbitrary way of accounting for his motive? Had St. Luke not appeared to have suggested so satisfactory a reason for writing, why should any one have thought it at all necessary to have recourse to a conjecture so improbable, so dishonourable to the many, and so little to the praise of the eye-witnesses and of the twelve in particular, who surely ought to have contradicted their falsehoods, and silenced their idle stories, long before Luke undertook to write? Why, for instance, may not every one of those many have been strangers to Theophilus, and St. Luke, on the contrary, his neighbour and his most intimate friend. It is by no means unlikely, that the first Gospelwriters lived near the scene of action, and where Theophilus lived, if he did not live at or near Antioch, it is not easy to say that he was not a Jew, nor acquainted with the language, nor country, nor customs of the Jews, we seem to have pretty good evidence. If then his place of residence was any where at a distance from the district where our Lord displayed his wonderful works, it is at least a supposable case, that every one of those many writers may have been unknown to him, and if they all wrote in the Hebrew language, as the professor seems to have been inclined to think they did, it

is highly probable, that he could not have known the contents of their Gospels, otherwise than by the interpretation of others. If so, it surely must have afforded him no little satisfaction to find, that a friend, on whom he could safely rely, had, after having made it his particular business to investigate the whole train of events, discovered that every thing had really happened as report, both verbal and written, had previously stated to him, and had enabled him to review at any time, by the help of a written document, what had thus been impressed upon his mind by others. Again: how many of those Evangelists may have written before the council, we know not; that some of them may have written be fore that time is not unlikely; and that most, if not all of them, may have written under the influence of Jewish prejudices, is also not unlikely: however, that they should all have divested themselves of their Jewish prejudices before the Apostles, is by no means a credible case. If then Theophilus was an inhabitant of Antioch, or any other place, where dissensions had arisen concerning the necessary means of salvation, why may he not have been desirous of knowing for certain, what new restrictions. had been laid on him by the Christian religion, and from what burdens he had been released by it, and to what new privileges it had admitted him? And why may not St. Luke have thought it necessary to give a more impartial account of the matter, and to make a more extensive disclosure of the comprehensive scheme of Christianity? Again: If Theophilus perceived that the vivâ voce reports to which he had at first attended, appeared in certain cases to disagree with the purport of those written accounts-or, if he was every now and then brought acquainted with some new circumstances not recorded in any of those narratives, he may have requested St. Luke to furnish him with a more ample account of things.-Or why may not St. Luke have thought it a sufficient reason to write, because some of those many had inaccurately stated some of the facts, and others had omitted some of the more important; and none of them had given that full view of the subject, which they might have done by extending their enquiries or had each been more concise with regard to some important part than was meet? Had St. Luke ascertained only two or three important particulars, which had es

caped

caped the enquiries of all or most of those many, (and, that his Gospel contains a great variety of very interesting matter not recorded in any of the other canonical three, we very well know), and each of thein had omitted only one single fact mentioned by all or any of the rest, would it not have been a sufficient reason for St. Luke's performance, and have rendered it to a person well acquainted with his character, a desirable acquisition?

In short, had those narratives been written in a language, or by persons unknown to Theophilus; had the authors of them been tinctured with Jewish prejudices; bad their performances been either not so complete as Theophilus may have had reason to expect, or not so correctly written on all or any of these accounts St. Luke may have thought it proper to write another narrative of our Lord's ministry. But why should we have recourse to any of these conjectural modes of accounting for our Evangelist's motive in writing? As he has not in express terms found fault with those early Evangelists; as he seems to have intimated, that they obtained their information from the eye-witnesses as well as himself, and endeavoured to arrange their materials in due order; as he seems by the whole tenor of his preface, to have given them credit for sincerity of intention, and by the conclusion of it to have pronounced those reports to which Theophilus had attended as having been rather accurate than otherwise; and as those reports seem to include the interpretations of those early Hebrew Gospels, as well as mere rumours; and as he does not appear to have expostulated with Theophilus for having deserted the faith-why should we not rest satisfied with the Evangelist's own evidence on this point Professor Michaelis surely above all others ought not to have been dissatisfied with it, for by his own account," as long as the Apostles lived and taught, there was little danger to be apprehended from the erroneous accounts of them in Judæa." And at Antioch, he ought to have recollected, not much more, for pretty nearly the same reason. And in other countries where the Greek language was spoken, not very much from the nisrepresentations of Hebrew writers.

(To be continued.)

LETTERS