his own account of the transaction, is merely that of a witness. Peter was the person who, upon this occasion, first entered into the tomb-John, although first on the spot, giving place to him. Again, the account of our Lord's appearance to the disciples at Jerusalem is given in the very words of John :

"Jesus came and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And when he had so said, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord."-(xx. 19, 20.)

St Luke relates the same event thus :

"Jesus himself stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have. And when he had so said, he showed them his hands and his feet. And while they yet believed not for joy," &c.-(xxiv. 36-41.)

There is, therefore, reason to suppose that amongst the communications of eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, alluded to by St Luke in his preface, were the yet unpublished memoirs of St John, and that these were made use of by him.

There is still another possibility which, in an inquiry like the present, ought not to be passed over unnoticed. I mean the assistance which, as a beloved friend and fellow-labourer, he may be supposed to have derived from the Apostle Paul.

There can be no doubt but that the connection must have given great value to the writings of St Luke in the estimation of the early Christians, and most justly so; for we cannot suppose that he wrote without the sanction and approbation of St Paul, with whom we have good reason to believe he was, both when he wrote the Acts and when he wrote the Gospel. He was, therefore, always within reach of such assistance; and his account of the Last Supper seems to indicate that he availed himself of it to a certain extent. Origen informs us that his Gospel was approved of, or rather praised, by Paul-“ îñò Haúλov éñawoúpevov évayyédiov.”— Ap Euseb., H. E., vi. 25.

It appears that there was a tradition that this Gospel had its origin in the instructions of St Paul, and we can easily understand

how it should have arisen. Tertullian mentions the tradition, or rather the conjecture, that such was the case, and accounts for it by saying "it was natural to take that for the masters', which the disciples promulgated." Irenæus, indeed, says that "Luke, the follower of Paul, wrote what Paul preached." + But this is not inconsistent with what may be inferred from St Luke's preface, that he wrote from what the original eyewitnesses had communicated to him; because, in another place, he (Irenæus) takes the same view of the origin of this Gospel. We may conclude, therefore, both from the circumstances of the case and ancient tradition, that St Luke had the approbation of St Paul, and, to a certain extent, his assistance.

I now proceed to show that he did make use of the authority of those "who were from the beginning eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word."

Having in another work demonstrated that the Acts of the Apostles could only have been written by a person engaged in some of the most eventful scenes which he has recorded, I avail myself of his testimony, first, as to the genuineness of his own Gospel, proving that it was written before the Acts; and, in the next place, to his testimony, given in the preface to the Gospel, proving that before it was written there were already many accounts of the life of our Lord in existence. That this most important fact is asserted by St Luke, will not be disputed; but its connection with the next clause of the preface has given rise to much discussion, and has been turned into every possible shape. so as to suit the purposes of theorists.

Dr Davidson, who, in his Introduction to the New Testament, ascribes the phenomena of the origin of the Gospel to oral tradition, explains it thus:-"Many attempts have been made to give a fixed character, in writing, to the oral evangelical tradition before Luke commenced to write." But to draw up a digest does not necessarily * "Lucæ digestum Paulo ascribere solent. Capit magistrorum videri quæ discipuli promulgarint."-Ado. Marc., iv. 5.

* “ Λουκᾶς δὲ ἀκόλουθος Παυλου τὸ ὑπ' ἐκείνου κηρυσσόμενον εὐαγγέλιον ἐν βιβλίῳ κατέOETO."-Ado. Hær. iii. 1.

mean to give fixity to oral tradition. There is not a word about oral tradition expressed in the preface, nor do I believe implied in it. I know that the second clause is understood by many critics as explanatory of the first—that is, of the mode in which the many had drawn up their digests, "as eyewitnesses, &c., had delivered to us." But, in the first place, what is derived directly from eyewitnesses is not necessarily oral, and even when it is, the term "tradition" is inapplicable-for it is never applied to the direct testimony of eyewitnesses. If Luke, for instance, received accounts from an eyewitness, and recorded them in his history, he could not be said to be writing from tradition; neither could it be said of the "many," if it be Luke's intention to tell us that they derived their information from eyewitnesses. But I do not believe that such was his intention. If it had been, he would have said, delivered to "them;" not, to "us." He could have no object in stating to Theophilus the authority of the "many;" but he had a very essential object in stating that he himself was in possession of the accounts of eyewitnesses. Now, he docs so in the expression #apédoσav hμiv, "delivered to us;" for however wide the meaning we give to iv," us," it must include Luke. I believe he uses the first person plural as a less egotistical expression than if he had said, "delivered to me." So Eusebius understands it; for in quoting Luke's preface, in the third person, he repeatedly renders “μi" not into “ȧvroîs," but into “avr”—that is, not as they delivered to " them" (the many), but unto "him" (St Luke).*

The preface is short and elliptical. It begins with the general statement, which is so expressed as to include all who had previously written on the same subject. This is connected with the next clause by the adverb kaos, which I would translate, such as," and render the connection thus, "many have drawn up a digest of the events, &c., such as we have received from those who were eyewitnesses," &c. But however we may understand the passage, we must admit that by St Luke's own statement he was

See instances in the notes in the next page.

C

in possession of accounts furnished by eyewitnesses; and although he does not, in express words, say that he made use of such authority, it is surely implied that he did. If I write to a friend. that I am anxious that he should know the truth of certain events, and if I inform him that I am in possession of the evidence of eyewitnesses, he must of necessity conclude that I availed myself of it. Irenæus so understood St Luke's preface.

"Luke delivered to us what he had learned from them (the apostles), as he himself testifies, saying, 'Even as they delivered them to us, which were from the beginning eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word.""*

So also Eusebius describes the manner in which St Luke composed his Gospel:

"Luke, who was born at Antioch, and by profession a physician, being for the most part connected with Paul, and familiarly acquainted with the rest of the apostles, has left us, in two inspired books, the institutes of that spiritual healing which he obtained from them. One of these is his Gospel, in which he testifies that he has recorded 'as those who were from the beginning eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word' delivered to him (kaðà tapédoσav à vTậ), whom also he says he has in all things followed." +

And in his Evangelical Demonstrations, in noticing the precedence which Luke gives to Matthew before Thomas, he says

"Thus Luke honours Matthew according to what had been delivered to him (καθ' ὁ παρέδωκαν ἀυτῷ) by those which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word." +

Jerome is not less clear upon this point. He says that

"Luke did not learn his Gospel from Paul alone, who had not been with our Lord in the flesh, but from the other apostles, as he himself declares in

* “Lucas ... ea quæ ab eis (Apostolis) didicerat tradidit nobis sicut ipse testificatur dicens, 'Quemadmodum tradiderunt nobis qui ab initio contemplatores et ministri fuerunt verbi.'"-Adv. Hær., iii. 14.

† “ Λουκᾶς δὲ τὸ μὲν γένος ὤν τῶν ἀπ' ̓Αντιοχείας τὴν δὲ ἐπιστήμην ἰατρός, τὰ πλεῖστα συγγεγονὼς τῷ Παύλῳ καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς δὲ ου παρέργως τῶν ἀποστόλων ὡμιληκὼς ἧς από τούτων προσεκτήσατο ψυχῶν θεραπευτικῆς ἐν δυσὶν ἡμῖν ὑποδειγματα θεοπνευστοις καταλέλοιπε βιβλίοις τῷ τε ἐυαγγελίῳ ὁ καὶ χαράξαι μαρτύρεται καθὰ παρέδοσαν ἀ ν τῷ ὁι ἀπ' ἀρχῆς κ.τ.λ.”—Η. Ε., iii. 4.

† “Ούτως μὲν τὸν Ματθαιὸν ὁ Λουκᾶς ἐτίμησεν καθ' ὁ παρέδωκαν αυτῷ ὁι ἀπ ̓ ἀρχῆς

K.T.λ."

the beginning of his volume, saying, 'As they delivered to us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word.""*

And Tertullian, although he does not quote St Luke's preface, grounds the authority of his Gospel upon its being derived immediately from the apostles. After noticing that St Paul himself required the authority of the apostles, he adds, "How much more is that authority necessary for the Gospel of Luke than for the Gospel of his Master?"-Adv. Marcion, iv. 2.

I conclude, therefore, with the Fathers, that St Luke not only asserts in his preface that he was in possession of the narratives of those engaged in the transactions, but that his Gospel was in a great measure drawn up from them.

66

amongst us,'

I conclude also that the expression ἐν ἡμῖν, “ implies that the Gospel was written in Judea, the scene of the events which are recorded in it; but if so, the evangelist must have been personally familiar with the localities-a most important element in historical accuracy. Now, I think there is internal evidence to prove that he was, and that he describes events just as a person writing on the spot would do, even when he draws his information from preceding authors. Thus in his account of our Lord's triumphal entry into Jerusalem, he marks the very spot where the attendant multitude burst out into hosannas, xix. 37 (see Sect. lviii. p. 144), a circumstance peculiar to Luke's Gospel. So also, in describing the events in Galilee, the influence of his familiarity with the localities is very perceptible. Writing to a person at a distance, he thinks it necessary, when he mentions Capernaum, to inform him that it is a city of Galilee; but when the great features of nature which characterise the site of that city, the mountain and the lake, are mentioned, it does not occur to him that any explanation is necessary.

The strongest proof, however, that the Gospel was written in Judea, is drawn from the difference in the use of the word 'Lovdatos (Jew) in the Gospel, as compared with the Acts. A historian

* "Quod ipse quoque in principio sui voluminis declarat, dicens, sicut tradiderunt nobis qui a principio,'" &c.-Vita D. Lucæ.