And

of our Saviour's transfiguration, taking James to be the fon of Zebedee: whereas the epiftle of James could not be writ till long after his death, who was beheaded by Herod Agrippa, as related Acts xii. 1. 2. St. Paul's fecond epiftle to Timothie (o) is faid by the fame Syrians, to have been writ at Rome, and fent by Luke. Which is manifeftly contrarie to the epiftle itself. See 2 Tim. iv. 11. 12.

St. Luke's Gofpel is also faid in the Perfic verfion, (p) to have been writ at Alexandria. But then it is allowed, that this verfion was made from the Syriac, not from the Greek.

Thirdly, it is alfo urged, that there are epigraphai or inscriptions in fome manufcripts, at the end of this Gofpel, where it is faid, that it was writ in the great city of Alexandria.

But it is well known, that thofe infcriptions at the end of the books of the New Teftament are of little value, divers of them containing manifest mistakes; and they are in late manufcripts only, or however, fuch as are not of the higheft antiquity.

Fourthly. Grabe (q) likewife infifts upon a paffage in the Apoftolical Conftitutions, where the Apoftles are brought in, relating what Bishops had been appointed by them in their own time. And it is faid, that in Alexandria, Anianus, the firft Bishop, was ordained by the Evangelift Mark, and Abilius by Luke, alfo Evangelift. And (r) Mill in like manber quotes the conftitutions, after Grabe, though almoft afhamed fo to

do.

But it should be confidered, that the author of that work is anonymous, and unknown, and his time not certain. He fays what he pleafeth. And has been convicted of falfhood in fuch accounts (s) as thefe, as well as in others. It has very much the appearance of fiction, that the firft Bishop of Alexandria fhould be ordained by Mark, and the fecond by Luke. And poffibly it is a fiction of the writer himself. For I do not recollect, that this is faid any where elfe. Epiphanius, as well as more ancient writers, must have been totally unacquainted with this ordination, and with St. Luke's journeys in Egypt. For he fays, that (†)

this

(0) Ad Timotheum vero fecunda Romæ fcripta, fuit miffa per eundem Lucam Medicum et Evangeliftam. Ebedjefu Catal. ap. Alleman. Bib. Or. T. iii. p. 12.

(p) Et in verfione Perfica, quam tamen non ex Græco, fed Syriaco textu tranflatam exiftimat admodum R. Waltonus: Evangelium Luce, quod lingua Græca Ægyptiaca in Alexandria fcripfit. Grab. ubi fupr. p. 33.

(7) Atque hoc non parum confirmatur ex eo quod lib. vii. Conft. Apost. Clement. cap. 46. Lucas dicatur Alexandriæ fuiffe, ibique Epifcopum Avilium ordinaffe. Urbis Alexandrinorum Anianus primus a Marco Evange lifta ordinatus eft, fecundus vero Avilius a Luca, et ipfo Evangelifta. Grabe ibid.

..

(r) Et fi Conftitutionum Apoftolicarum feu auctori feu confarcinatori fides in ecclefia Alexandria, a Marco primum fundata, Avilium Aniani prim Epifcopi fuccefforem, ordinaverit. Mill. Prol. n. 141. (3) See in this work vol. viii. p. 352.

(1) Her. L. i. num. xi. p. 433.

this Evangelift preached the gofpel in Dalmatia, Gaul, Italie, and Macedonia, but especially in Gaul.

Du Pin having taken notice of what is faid relating to this matter in the infcriptions, which are in fome manufcripts, the titles in the Syriac and Perfic verfions, Metaphrafles, and the Conftitutions, concludes: "All (u) these monuments deferve no credit. We ought to adhere to "what is faid by Jerome, as most probable: that this Gofpel was com"pofed in Achaia, or Boeotia."

Upon the whole, there appears not any good reason to fay, that St. Luke wrote his Gofpel at Alexandria, or that he preached at all in Egypt. It is more probable, that when he left Paul, he went into Greece, and there compofed, or finished, and published his Gofpel, and the Acts of the Apostles.

VII. I would now offer fomething by way of characHis Character. ter of this Evangelift. But I fhall do it briefly, and cautiously. And if I mention doubtful things doubtfully, I may hope to efcape cenfure. It is probable, that he is Lucius, mentioned Rom. xvi. 21. If fo, he was related to St. Paul the Apostle. And it is not unlikely, that that Lucius is the fame as Lucius of Cyrene, mentioned by name. Acts xiii. 1. and in general with others. ch. xi. 20. It appears to me very probable, that St. Luke was a Jew by birth, and an early Jewish believer. This must be reckoned to be a kind of requifite qualification for writing a hiftorie of Chrift and the early preaching of his Apostles to advantage. Which, certainly, St. Luke has performed. I do not perceive fufficient reafon to believe, that Luke was one of Chrift's feventy difciples. But he may have been one of the two, whom our Lord met in the way to Emmaus, on the day of his refurrection, as related Luke xxiv. 13... 35. He is exprefsly filed by the Apoftle his fellow-laborer. Philem. ver. 24. If he be the perfon intended Col. iv. 14. (which feems very probable,) he was, or had been, by profeffion a Phyfician. And he was greatly valued by the Apofile, who calls him beloved. Which must be reckoned much to his honour. For nothing could be fo likely to recommend any man to St. Paul's esteem, as faithfulneffe to the interefts of pure religion. It is undoubted, that he accompanied Paul, when he firft went into Macedonia. A&s xvi. 8... 40. And though we are not fully affured, that he continued to be with him conftantly afterwards: we know, that he went with the Apostle from Greece through Macedonia, and Afia, to Jerufalem, and thence to Rome, where he stayed with him the whole two years of his imprisonment in that city. This alone makes out the space of above five years. And it is an attendance well becoming Lucius of Cyrene: to which no man could be more readily difpofed, than one of the first preachers of the gofpel to the Gentils. We do not exactly know, when St. Luke formed the defign of writing his two books. But, probably, they are the labour of feveral years. During St. Paul's imprisonment in Judea, which lasted more than two years, and was a time of inaction for the Apostle, St. Luke had an opportunity for compleating his collections, and filling up his plan. For in that time unquestionably Luke converfed with many

(u) Differtat. fur la Bible, liv. 2. ch. 2. §. v. p. 39.

early

early Jewish believers, and eye-witneffes of the Lord, and fome of the Apostles, who were ftill at Jerufalem. And I make no doubt, but that before that feafon he had converfed with feveral of the Apostles, and other eye-witnesses of our Lord's perfon and works. Nor can any hefitate to allow the truth of what is faid by fome of the ancients, that Luke, who for the most part was a companion of Paul, had likewife more than a flight acquaintance with the reft of the Apoftles. Whilft he was with Paul at Rome, it is likely, that he had fome leisure for compofing, and writing. When St. Paul left Rome, I imagine, that Luke accompanied him no longer: but went into Greece, where he finished, and published, one after the other, his two books. Which he infcribed to Theophilus, an honorable friend, and a good Chriftian in that countrey. Here Luke died, and perhaps fomewhat in years. Nor need it to be reckoned an improbable fuppofition, that he was older than the Apostle.

Obfervations

VIII. I fhall conclude this chapter with fome obfervations upon St. Luke's Gofpel, and the Acts of the Apo- upon his Gospel. fles. But thofe upon his Gofpel will chiefly relate to the introduction: though fome were mentioned formerly.

1. St. Luke's two books, his Gospel and the Acts, are infcribed to Theophilus. Whereby fome understand any good Chriftian in general, others a particular perfon.

Epiphanius (x) fpeaks as if he was in doubt, whether thereby fhould be understood a particular perfon, or a lover of God in general. Salvian (y) feems to have fuppofed it to be only a feigned name.

Auguftin (z) and Chryfoftom (a), and many others, have thereby underftood a real perfon. Theophylas expreffeth himself after this manner : "Theophilus, (b) to whom Luke wrote, was a man of fenatorian rank, "and poffibly a Governour: forafmuch as he calls him most excellent, the "fame title, which Paul ufeth in his addreffes to Felix and Feftus." Oecumenius fays, "that (c) Theophilus was a Prefect or Governour." However, we have no particular account in the ancients, who he was, or of what countrey.

Cave (d) fuppofed Theophilus to have been a Nobleman of Antioch. And in his Lives of the Apostles and Evangelists (e) writ in English, he

refers

(*) Ειτ' εν τινὶ θεοφιλῷ τότε γράφων τῦτο ἔλεγεν, ἢ παντὶ ἀνθρώπῳ θεὸν ἀγα T. Epiph. Hær. LI. n. vii. p. 429. A.

(2) Pofitus itaque in hoc ambigue opinionis incerto, optimum fere credidit, ut beati Evangeliftae facratiffimum fequeretur exemplum: qui in utroque divini operis exordio Theophili nomen infcribens, cum ad hominem. fcripfiffe videatur, ad amorem Dei fcripfit: hoc fcilicet digniffimum effe judicans, ut ad ipfum affectum Dei fcripta dirigeret, a quo ad fcribendum impulfus effet. Salvian. ad Salon. ep. 9. p. 215.

(z) De Confenf. Evan. l. 4. c. 8. T. 3.

(a) Chryf. in A. Hom. i. T. 9. p. 3. 4. (b) See Val. xi. p. 423,

(c) Hytary butos & Biopiños, &c. Comm. in Ad. T. 2 p. 2 C.

(d) Utrumque opus infcripfit, Theophilo optimati, (ut credere fas eft,) Antiocheno. Hift, Lit. in Luca.

(c) P. 224,

refers to the Recognitions: where is mentioned a rich man of Antioch, of this name. But I do not efteem that to be any proof, that St. Luke's Theophilus was of Antioch. That fabulous writer is not fpeaking of Paul, nor of Luke, but of Peter: who, as he fays, in (f) feven days converted ten thousand people at Antisch. And Theophilus, the greateft man in the city, turned his houfe into a church. Moreover, fuppofing him to intend St. Luke's Theophilus, his authority is of no value. A writer at the end of the fecond centurie does not fpeak of his own knowledge. And if St. Luke publifhed his books in Greece, which to me feems probable, I fhould be inclined to think, that Theophilus, to whom they are addreffed, was a man of the fame countrey.

2. It may be of more importante to enquire, whom St. Luke means by the many, who before him had attempted to write hiftories of Jefus Chrift. Epiphanius fays, that (g) St. Luke intended Cerinthus, Merinthus, and others. How Origen (b) expreffed himself concerning this, in his preface to St. Luke's Gofpel; and how Jerome (i) in his preface to St. Mat thew, may be seen by thofe, who are pleafed to look back. They fay, that many attempted to write Gofpels, as Bafilides, Apelles, and others. And they mention divers Gofpels, not received by the Church: Such as the Gospel of Thomas, and Matthias, the Gofpels of the Egyptians, and of the Twelve. But it is not neceffarie to be fuppofed by us, that they thought, that all, if any, of those Gofpels were writ before St. Luke's, or that he fpoke of them. For Bafilides and Apelles could not write Gofpels before the fecond centurie. And they might fuppofe, that several, if not all the other, mentioned by them, were writ after St. Luke's. The meaning of what these ancient writers fay, is, that the Church receives four Gospels only. There were many others. But to them may be applied the words of St. Luke: they only took in hand, or attempted. They did not perform, as Matthew, and Mark, and Luke, and John, did. And they might exprefs themselves in that manner concerning Gofpels writ after St. Luke's, as well as before it.

However, Theophylact, as was formerly (k) obferved, in the preface to his Commentarie upon St. Luke, expreffeth himself, as if he thought the Evangelift referred to the Gofpels according to the Egyptians, and according to the Twelve.

3. We will now obferve the judgements of fome learned moderns. Grabe (1) allows, that St. Luke did not refer to the Gofpels of Bafilides,

or

(f) Et ne multis immorer, intra feptem dies, plus quam decem millia hominum credentes Deo baptizati funt, et fanctificatione confecrati: ita ut omni aviditatis defiderio Theophilus, qui erat cunctis potentibus in civitate fublimior, domus fuæ ingentem bafilicam, ecclefiæ nomine confecravit. Recogn. 1. x. cap. 71.

(g) φάσκων ἐπειδήπες πολλοὶ ἐπεχείρησαν ἵνα τινὰς μὲν ἐπιχειρητὰς δείξῃ, φημὶ δὲ τὰς περὶ κήρινθον, καὶ μήρινθον, καὶ τὰς ἄλλες. H. LI. n. vii. in. (b) See Vol. iii. p. 317. 318.. (i) See Vol. x. p. 140. 141.

(k) Vol. xi. p. 422.

(7) Reliqua quippe ab Origene et Ambrofio nominata falfa Evangelia, veluti Bafilidis, aliudque Manichæorum, Apoftolo Thomæ perperam adfcriptum, procul omni dubio poft S. Lucæ obitum prodiere: adeo ut ea in primis Evangelii verbis, in quorum explicatione Origenes et Ambrofius ifta afferunt,

refpicere

or Thomas, or fome others, mentioned by Origen. For they were not published, till after St. Luke's death. But he thinks, that St. Luke might refer to the Gospel according to the Egyptians, and according to the Twelve, and fome others, now unknown.

That St. Luke might refer to the Gofpel according to the Egyptians, he thinks for the following reafons, which I fhall confider.

The firft is, that (m) St. Luke's Gofpel was writ in Egypt. To which I answer: That is faid without ground, as has been lately (n) fhewn.

Grabe's fecond argument is, that (0) Clement of Rome, or fome other, in the fragment of the fecond epiftle afcribed to him, has quoted the Gofpel according to the Egyptians. Which argument, as one would think, might have been fpared: fince Grabe himself allows, that (p) fecond epiftle to be fuppofitious, and not to have been compofed, till about the middle of the third centurie. If that be the true date of the epiftle, it is too late a thing, to warrant the fuppofition, that St. Luke referred to the Gofpel according to the Egyptians.

I fhall take no further notice of Grabe. But I imagine, that the Gofpel according to the Egyptians was not compofed before the fecond centurie. Clement of Alexandria is the first known Catholic author, that has cited it. And in his time it was very obfcure and little known. This (q) was fhewn formerly.

Dr. Mill does not much differ from Grabe. He thinks, that (r) of the many Narrations, to which St. Luke refers, the two principal were the Gofpels according to the Hebrews, and according to the Egyptians.

The general account, which Mill gives of thofe Memoirs or Narrations, feems to be very juft and reafonable. And I intend to tranfcribe him here largely. "About (s) the year 58. or fomewhat fooner, fays. "Mill,

refpicere haud potuerit. Contra vero haud eft abfimile, ifta fecundum Hebræos et Egyptios ante fuiffe fcripta, atque ad ea, una cum aliis pluribus jam ignotis, Lucam intendiffe digitum, dum præfatus eft. &c. Gr. Spic. T. i. *. 31. 32.

(m) Evangelium, de quo agitur, ab Ægyptiis editum fuiffe ante Lucæ Evangelium, huncque iftud inter alia, fi non præcipue, refpexiffe, dum in prooemio plures hiftorias evangelicas memorat, ad quas emendandas, et defectus eorum fupplendos, fuam literis confignaffe fe innuit, probabile redditur ex eo, quod Lucas Evangelium fcripfiffe dicatur Alexandriæ in Ægypto. Id. ib. p. 33. in.

(n) See before p. 103.. 105.

(0) Accedit, quod jam Clemens Romanus, vel quifquis eft auctor ep. 2. ad Corinthios, certe antiquiffimus, ifto Evangelio ufus effe ex fragmento mox recitando, colligatur. Ibid. p. 34.

(p) Ceterum quæras, quando epiftola illa Clementi fuppofita fuerat, refpondeo, id feculo iii. et quidem medio, factum effe. Ib. p. 269. in.

(9) See Vol. ii. p. 527... 530. fecond edition. p. 526. 529. firft edition. (r) Ex dictis autem hifce hiftoriolis.. duæ præ ceteris celebratæ erant, que et ipfæ Evangelia appellabantur, fecundum Hebræos alterum, alterum fecundum Ægyptios. Proleg. n. 38. vid. et n. 39 . . . 41. et n. 112. &c.

(5) Sub hoc quidem tempus, annum dico LVIII. feu etiam aliquanto aute, contextæ fuere a fidelibus quibufdam illius ævi dyou; evangelica,

feu