εἶτα τοῖς ἀποςόλοις πάσιν. Now, had St. Luke published his Gospel after the date of this Epistle, it is to me, I own, utterly inconceiva ble that he should omit the infertion of fome of these circumftances, if he knew of them, And that he must know of them, is plain, because, fuppofing he was not fent with the Epiftle itself, yet it appears, from the history of the Acts, that he was about that point of time, just before, and afterwards, attending on St. Paul, and could not therefore be ig norant of the contents of it.

Your Lordship knows well, that the appearance to Peter mentioned by St. Paul is related by no other Evangelift but St. Luke. Now, had St. Luke taken this circumstance from St. Paul's Epiftle, he would from thence have taken others alfo into his account, which are of more moment, and yet are omitted by him.

The former part of St. Paul's account (contained in ver. 3, 4, 5,) is exactly agreeable to St. Luke's; and one would be apt to think, upon a careful comparison of fome of the expreffions there with thofe of St. Luke [xxiv. 45, 46, 47,] that he had an eye to

them.

them. And, if he had, his introduction to that account [ver. 1. and 2], wherein he remarkably dwells on the words τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, and εὐηΓγελισάμην will have an eafy and na tural reference to the Gofpel which he had preached, and which St. Luke, from his authority chiefly, though not only, had committed to writing.

The following verfes in St. Paul [6, 7] contain additional evidences of the refurrection, unmentioned by St. Luke. And yet St. Paul expressly avers, that he laid before the Corinthians thefe very evidences of Chrift's refurrection, when he firft preached the Gospel to them [i. e. circiter A. D. 52, at the loweft]; confequently either St. Luke knew nothing of what St. Paul had thus preached to the Corinthians (which, all circumstances confidered, is not to be supposed); or he thought thefe particulars not worth inferting in his Gospel (which nobody will imagine); or (which is most reasonable to believe) he had already publifhed his Gofpel, before A. D. 52; and therefore took no notice of thefe particulars, becaufe he had not, at the time of his writing, a full knowledge Dd 4

of

of them. And this fuppofition (the only one that, upon the whole, feems to me in any degree probable) agrees with what Theophylact, and the anoypapai of the MSS. of St. Luke, generally affirm. I think there are fifteen of them in Kufter's edition, that fix the era of this Gospel about A. D. 48, or 49; an authority, which, though not of itfelf perhaps very strong, yet must have great weight, when it falls in with many other concurrent proofs and probabilities, and is not, that I know of, exprefsly contradicted by any one of the ancients. If it be, your Lordship can easily, and therefore I doubt not will readily, inform me.

You fee, my Lord, what I aim at, and have one inftance by what methods I propose to arrive at it. There is another part of the Evangelic hiftory, relating to the inftitution of the Eucharift, and occurring in the fame Epiftle, xi. 25; which will furnish reflections of the fame nature with the foregoing, particularly in refpect of the words τᾶτο ποιεῖτε ὁσάκις ἂν πίνητε, εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν dávno, which are by St. Paul applied to the cup, but by St. Luke omitted. I fhall

not

ان

not add any thing on that head to what I
have already said, because I would not give
your Lordship or myself an unneceffary trou-
ble, and because indeed I hope the former
inftance to be much the strongest. However,
these two being the only parts of the Gospel
hiftory explained by St. Paul in his Epiftles,
I have fuggefted what ufes may alike be
made of both of them. If your Lordship
approves this way of reasoning, and will be
pleased at your leifure to let me into any
new ways of confirming it; or if you do not
approve it, and will freely let me know your
objections, and set them in the strongest light;
either the one, or the other, will be very
welcome to me: for I aim at nothing but
truth, and the fervice of our common Chrif-
tianity; and I would not endeavour to serve
the one, at the expence of the other; nor
advance any hypothefis, how plausible foever,
which either may at last by abler men be con-
futed, or be attended with ill confequences
which I am not aware of. Your Lordship
therefore will do the part of a good friend, if
you shew yourself as willing, as I know you
are able, to fet me right in any of these parti-
culars.

As

As to what your Lordship adds in your laft concerning 2 Cor. viii. 18. from Chryfoftom, and Oecumenius (i. e. from Chryfoftom, for the other only follows him); I beg leave to fay, that those are words of doubt only; and carry no pofitive opinion; whereas both elder and greater authorities (fuch I efteem Origen, Eufebius, and Jerome) exprefsly affirm St. Luke to be meant there. And if there be any antient writer (I mean of Chryfoftom's time or before) who directly affirms the contrary, your Lordship can and will let me know it.

In the other point, the time of St. John's writing his Gofpel, which I take to have been before the deftruction of Jerufalem, I own the' teftimony of fome of the Ancients to be against me, though not to that degree as it is commonly understood to be. And there are many things to be faid, which will leffen the authority of fuch teftimony, particularly that it has not that age it ought to have, in order to weigh much in the dispute: but I will not enter into thofe matters at prefent; efpecially fince my chief reliance in the cafe is, I confefs, upon internal arguments;

of