Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

was; and Luke's Digest is often ascribed to Paul. And, indeed, it is easy to take that for the Master's which the Disciples published." Again, "Moreover, Luke was not an Apostle, but an Apostolic man; not a master, but a disciple: certainly less than his master; certainly so much later, as he is a follower of Paul, the last of the Apostles."

ORIGEN mentions the Gospels in the order commonly received" The third," says he, "is that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, published for the sake of the Gentile converts." In his commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, which we now have in a Latin version only, he writes, "Some say Lucius is Lucas, the Evangelist, as indeed it is not uncommon to write names, sometimes according to the original form, sometimes according to the Greek and Roman termination."

EUSEBIUS has left us the following testimony concerning Luke the Evangelist:-" And Luke, who was of Antioch, and by profession a physician, for the most part a companion of Paul, who had, likewise, more than a slight acquaintance with the other Apostles, has left us, in two books, divinely inspired, evidences of the art of healing souls, which he had learned from them. One of them is the Gospel which he professeth to have written as they delivered it to him, who, from the beginning, were eye-witnesses and ministers of his word." With all whom, he says, he had been perfectly acquainted from the first. And in another place, he says, "Luke hath delivered in his Gospel, a certain account of such things as he had been assured of by his intimate acquaintance and familiarity with Paul, and his conversation with the other Apostles."

In the Synopsis ascribed to ATHANASIUS, it is said, "That the Gospel of Luke was dictated by the Apostle Paul, and written and published by the blessed Apostle and physician Luke."

GREGORY NAZIANZEN says, "That Luke wrote for the Greeks;" and GREGORY NYSSEN, "That Luke was as much a physician for the soul as the body.”

The testimony of JEROME concerning Luke is as follows: "Luke, who was of Antioch, and by profession a physician, not unskilful in the Greek language, a disciple of the Apostle Paul, and the constant companion of his travels, wrote a Gospel, and another excellent volume, entitled, the Acts of the Apostles..... It is supposed that Luke did not learn his Gospel from the Apostle Paul only, who had not conversed with the Lord in the flesh, but also from other Apostles, which like

[ocr errors]

wise he owns at the beginning of his volume, saying, Even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word.' Therefore, he wrote the Gospel from the information of others; but the Acts he composed from his own knowledge."*

The same writer, in the preface to his Commentary on St Matthew, says, "The third evangelist is Luke, the physician, a Syrian of Antioch, who was a disciple of the Apostle Paul, and published his Gospel in the countries of Achaia and Boetia."

In another place he observes, "That some said that Luke had been a proselyte to Judaism, before his conversion to Christianity."

CHRYSOSTOM, in his first Homily on the Gospel of Matthew, has this remark: "Luke had the fluency of Paul, Mark the conciseness of Peter, both learning of their masters."

ISIDORE of Seville, says, " Of the four evangelists, the first and last relate what they had heard Christ say, or had seen him perform. Matthew wrote his Gospel first in Judea; then Mark in Italy; Luke, the third in Achaia; John, the last, in Asia." And, again, "Of all the evangelists, Luke, the third in order, is reckoned to have been the most skilful in the Greek tongue. For he was a physician, and wrote his Gospel in Greek."

IN THEOPHYLACT's preface to St Matthew's Gospel, it is said, "There are four evangelists, two of whom, Matthew and John, were of the Apostles; and the other two, Mark and Luke, were of the number of the Seventy. Mark was a disciple and companion of Peter; Luke, of Paul Luke wrote fifteen years after Christ's ascension."

[ocr errors]

In his Commentary on Luke, he observes, "That it appears from Luke's Introduction, that he was not from the beginning a disciple, but only afterwards. For others were disciples from the beginning, as Peter, and the sons of Zebedee, who delivered to him the things which they had seen or heard." EUTHYMIUS says, "Luke was a native of Antioch, and a physician. He was a hearer of Christ, and, as some say, one of his Seventy Disciples, as well as Mark. He was afterwards very intimate with Paul. He wrote his Gospel, with Paul's permission, fifteen years after our Lord's ascension."

EUTYCHIUS, patriarch of Constantinople, has handed down the following account:- "In the time of the same emperor, (Nero) Luke wrote his Gospel in Greek, to a notable and wise man of the Romans, whose name was Theophilus; to whom he

Book of Illustrious Men.

also wrote the Acts, or the history of the Disciples. The Evangelist Luke was a companion of the Apostle Paul, going with him wherever he went. For which reason, the Apostle Paul, in one of his epistles, says, 'Luke the physician salutes you.'

The same arguments by which the Canonical authority of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark were established, apply with their full force to the Gospel of Luke. It was universally received as Canonical by the whole primitive church-has a place in every catalogue of the books of the New Testament which was ever published-is constantly referred to and cited by the Fathers, as a part of Sacred Scripture-and was one of the books constantly read in the churches, as a part of the rule of faith and practice for all believers.

MARCION, the heretic, it is true, had a Gospel according to Luke, which differed essentially from that in the Canon, but his authority has no weight.

SECTION VII.

THE OBJECTIONS OF J. D. MICHAELIS, TO THE CANONICAL AUTHORITY OF THE GOSPELS OF MARK AND LUKE, CONSIDERED AND ANSWERED.

J. D. MICHAELIS, in his Introduction to the New Testament, as translated from the German by Bishop Marsh, in the Third Section of the Third Chapter, speaking of the Gospels of St Mark and St Luke, and of the Acts of the Apostles, and of the grounds of placing them in the Canon, says, "I must confess that I am unable to find a satisfactory proof of their inspiration; and the more I investigate the subject, and the oftener I compare their writings with those of St Matthew and St John, the greater are my doubts." He then goes on to say, that in the former edition of this work, he had stated the arguments on both sides of the question, but although uncertain which he should prefer, yet he had rather inclined to the affirmative. But now, he tells us, that he is strongly inclined to the negative

The first argument for the inspiration of these Gospels which the learned professor considers, is derived from the fact, that

Er Mark and Luke were companions and assistants of the Apostles. This can afford no proof of their inspiration, even if it could be shown that they were endowed with the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, of which, however, there is no historical proof; because a Disciple might possess these gifts, and yet his writings not be inspired. And if we ground the argument for their inspiration on the character of an Apostle's assistant, then we must receive as Canonical the genuine Epistle of Clement of Rome, and the writings of other apostolical Fathers.

[ocr errors]

The next argument which he considers, is, that the Apostles themselves have recommended these Gospels as Canonical in their Epistles. That the passages depended on for proof do refer to these or any other written Gospels, the Professor denies: but even if they did, he considers the evidence unsatisfactory; for he supposes that they might have commended a book as containing genuine historical accounts, without vouching for its inspiration.

The testimony of the Fathers, that these Gospels were approved by Peter and Paul respectively, and, with Matthew's Gospel, were shown to the Apostle John, the learned Professor sets aside with very little ceremony.

And, finally, he demurs, in regard to the evidence of the Canonical authority of these books, derived from the testimony of the whole primitive church, by which they were undoubtedly received into the Canon; and suggests that the Apostles might have recommended them, and the primitive church have accepted them, as works indispensable to a Christian, on account of the importance of their contents, and that by insensible degrees they acquired the character of being inspired.

On these reasonings and objections against the inspiration and Canonical authority of several important books, which ⚫ have hitherto held an unquestioned place in the Canon of the New Testament, and coming from the pen of a man, too, of such extensive Biblical learning, I think it necessary to detain the reader with some remarks, which I hope will have the effect of counteracting the pernicious influence of the opinions which have been exhibited above.

1. In the first place, then, I would observe, that it will be admitted, that Mark and Luke were humble, pious men; also, that they were intelligent, well-informed men, and must have known that the committing to writing the facts and doctrines comprehended in the Gospel, was not left to the discretion or caprice of every Disciple, but became the duty of those only

H

who were inspired by the Holy Ghost to undertake the work. Now, if these two Disciples had been uninspired, or not under the immediate direction of Apostles who possessed plenary inspiration, it would have argued great presumption in them, without any direction, to write Gospels for the instruction of the church. The very fact of their writing, is, therefore, a strong evidence that they believed themselves to be inspired. There is, then, little force in the remark of the learned Professor, that neither St Mark nor St Luke have declared, in any part of their writings, that they were inspired; for such a declaration was unnecessary: their conduct in undertaking to write such books is the best evidence that they believed themselves called to this work.

And the objection to this argument, from the writings of other apostolical men, is not valid; for none of them ever undertook to write Gospels, for the use of the church. All attempts at writing other Gospels than the four, were considered by the primitive church as impious; because the writers were uninspired men.

2. But the universal reception of these books by the whole primitive church as Canonical, and that while some of the Apostles were living, is the evidence which, to my mind, is conclusive, that they were not mere human productions, but composed by divine inspiration. That they were thus universally received, I think is manifest, from the testimonies which have already been adduced. There is not, in all the writings of antiquity, a hint, that any Christian belonging to the church ever suspected that these Gospels were inferior in authority to the others. No books in the Canon appear to have been received with more universal consent, and to have been less disputed. They are contained in every catalogue which has come down to us. They are cited as Scripture by all that mention them; and are expressly declared by the Fathers to be Canonical and inspired books. Now, let it be remembered, that this is the best evidence which we can have that any of the books of the New Testament were written by inspiration. I know, indeed, that Michaelis places the whole proof of inspiration on the promise made by Christ to his Apostles; but while it is admitted that this is a weighty consideration, it does not appear to us to be equal in force to the testimony of the Universal Church, including the Apostles themselves, that these writings were penned under the guidance of the Holy Spirit; for it is not perfectly clear that the promise referred to was confined to the Twelve. Certainly, Paul, who was not of that

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »