thereby fhewn their opinion to be that his writing was then extant. I do not apprehend that there can be any confirming of this fenfe from any other text or paffage in fcripture; because there is no other place of fcripture that makes mention or fpeaks of any written Gofpel; and therefore no inftances can be given of that ufe of the word, fave that fome have understood St. Paul's εὐαγγέλιόν με in that fenfe. But there it is as ambiguous as here. The moft material, and, I think, only material argument, for that fenfe here, is that which your Lordship ufes, that there is no other fenfe in which the elogium is applicable peculiarly to St. Luke for as to praife for labour, or time, or fuccefs had in preaching the Gospel, Titus, one of the three fent, may be thought, at least, equal to him, being mentioned by St. Paul at other places, Gal. ii. as his fellow-labourer and companion of an earlier date, and in a more public and difficult ftruggle than St. Luke himfelf is. For St. Paul fingled him out to go along with him to that difpute at the council of Jerufalem, which Bishop Pearfon places ann. 49; the

new

new chronology does, I know not for what reason, bring it down to 52: either of them is earlier than Luke's name appears in any fcripture hiftory.

LETTER CXLII.

To Bp. ATTERBURY.

Cuddefden, July 30, [1722].

I

MY LORD,

had fooner acknowledged the favour of

your letter but that time were fo much taken

my thoughts and

up with my vifita

tion, and other affairs, that I could not fo fully confider it as it deferves, which, I doubt not, your Lordship will excufe.

I hope that in my former letter no expreffion was dropped which feemed to imply that your reafons for the early writing of St. Luke's or St. John's Gofpel did not carry with them a good degree of probability, which, indeed, they feem to me to do.

may

may Lay farther, that many fuch concurrent probabilitics may produce fome degree of certainty; though I must confefs that none of them, confidered feparately and apart from others, feem to me to infer any certain conclufion for example, it may be probable, but doth not feem to me to be certain, that St. Luke's Gofpel was written before the first Epifto the Corinthians, merely because feveral circumstances of our Lord's hiftory recorded in that Epistle are not found in St. Luke's Gofpel; for it is poffible that St. Luke might not be in actual attendance on St. Paul when this epiftle was written; and if he was in fuch attendance, it is poffible he might not read it. May not your Lordship, or any other Bishop, write letters of great importance, which are not communicated to all, or to any, of those chaplains who attend on you? Again, fhould it be granted that St. Luke was acquainted with the contents of this Epiftle, it seems not abfolutely certain that le would have inferted them into his GofFel: for it can hardly be thought that our Lord's appearance to "above five hundred bre

"thren

thren at once" (to fay nothing of his other appearances) was unknown either to St. Matthew or St. John, or indeed to St. Mark, who nevertheless have not thought fit to mention it and there is no doubt but all thefe Evangelifts knew many things relating to our Lord's history, which they have not committed to writing. One of them exprefsly fays, "Many other figns truly did Jefus in "the prefence of his difciples, &c." And again, "There are alfo many other things "which Jefus did, &c." It was not their intention to write every thing faid or done by our Lord, but only fo much as was neceffary for the conviction of perfons well difpofed : "Thefe are written that ye might be"lieve, &c." John xx. 30, 31. xxi. 25. Again, St. Luke might learn the feveral parts of our Lord's hiftory from the converfation of St. Paul, as well as from his Epiftles: ancient writers affure us that he did fo, and on that account "my Gofpel," in St. Paul, is by fome thought to be St. Luke's Gofpel; which opinion your Lordship feems to favour. But may not the filence of St. Luke as to fome of our Lord's appear

ances

ances, &c. equally prove, that his Gofpel was written before ever he attended on St. Paul, as that it was written before the first Epiftle to the Corinthians?

As to St. John, it seems to be at least poffible that his Gospel might be written after the deftruction of Jerufalem, though he hath never mentioned that event; for though he hath mentioned the completion of fome of our Lord's prophecies, it doth not thence follow, nor can it be proved, that it was his intention to take notice of the completion of all which at the time of his writing had been fulfilled and there is no doubt but many had then been fulfilled which are not mentioned by him. In particular, as to the destruction of Jerufalem, the prophecy concerning it is fo fully related by other Evangelifts, and the fulfilling of this prophecy in all its parts was fo notorious and fo fresh in men's memories when St. John wrote his Gofpel, that he might think it needless to say any thing about it. Then as to your Lordship's inference from John v. 2. "Es dè EY TOTS IEROoohúμos, &c. which, if ftrictly construed, doth undoubtedly imply that Jerufalem was ftanding

I