begining of his volume, faying: Even as they delivered them unto us, "who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and minifters of the word. "Therefore he wrote the Gospel from the information of others. "the Acts he compofed from his own knowledge."

So writes Ferome in his book of Illuftrious Men.

But

In the prologue to his Commentarie upon St. Matthew he fays: "The "(4) third Evangelift is Luke, the Physician, a Syrian of Antioch, who "was a difciple of the Apostle Paul, and published his Gofpel in the countreys of Achaia and Bastia."

He obferves elsewhere," that (b) fome faid, Luke had been a profelyte to Judaism, before his converfion to Chriftianity." He fpeaks of St. Luke in many other places, which I need not now take notice of.

Auguftin fays, " that (c) two of the Evangelifts, Matthew and John, were Apoftles... Mark and Luke difciples of Apoftles."

Chryfoftom in the Synopfis, probably his, fays: " Two (d) of the Gospels were writ by John and Matthew, Chrift's difciples, the other two by Luke and Mark, of whom one was disciple of Peter, the other of Paul. The former converfed with Chrift, and were eye-witneffes of what "they wrote. The other two wrote what they had received from eye"witneffes." And to the like purpose in (e) his firft homilie upon St. Matthew. Again he fays: "Luke (f) had the fluence of Paul, Mark "concifeneffe of Peter, both learning of their mafters." And upon Col. iv. 14. he fays: This (g) is the Evangelift.

Upon Col. iv. 14. Theodoret fays," that (b) perfon wrote the divine Gofpel, and the hiftorie of the Acts." He fays the fame upon (1)

2 Tim. iv. 11.

Paulinus (m) celebrates Luke, as having been firft a Phyfician of the body, then of the foul.

Here I would refer to the Author of Quæftiones et Refponfiones, probably writ in the fifth centurie, who (n) reckons both the Evangelifts, writers of the genealogies, that is, Matthew and Luke, to have been Hebrews.

According to Euthalius (0) Luke was a difciple of Paul, and a Phyfician of Antioch.

Ifidore of Seville, fays: " Of (p) the four Evangelifts, the first and laft "relate what they had heard Chrift fay, or had feen him perform. The "other two, placed between them, relate thofe things, which they had "learned from Apoftles. Matthew wrote his Gospel firft in Judea. Then Mark in Italie, Luke, the third, in Achaia, John the last, in Afia." In another place he fays: "Of (q) all the Evangelifts Luke, the third in order, is reckoned to have been the most skilful in the Greek tongue. For he was a Phyfician, and wrote his Gospel in "Greece."

64

F 2

(b) P.97.

In

(c) P. 227. 228.

(a) P.83.84.

(d) P. 312.

(c) P. 314... 316. And fee p. 325.

(3) Οὗτός ἐσιν ὁ εὐαγγελικής. In. Col. hom. 12. Τ. xi. p. 412.

(f) P. 322.

(1) In 2 Tim. T. 3. p. 505•
(n) See Vol. i. p. 263.

(b) See Vol. xi. note (A).

(m) Vol. xi. p. 44

(0) Vol. xi. p. 211.

(A) P. 367.

(4) P. 372.

For

In Theophyla are these things. In his preface to St. Matthew's Golpel he says, "that (r) there are four Evangelifts, two of which, Mat"thew and John, were of the choir of the twelve Apoftles: the other two, Mark and Luke, were of the number of the Seventy. Mark was "a difciple and companion of Peter, Luke of Paul.... Luke wrote fif"teen years after Chrift's afcenfion." In the preface to his Commentarie upon St. Luke he fays, "that (s) from that introduction it appears, "Luke was not from the begining a difciple, but only afterwards. "others were difciples from the begining, as Peter, and the fons of Ze"bedee, who delivered to him the things which they had feen or heard.” Upon which fome remarks were made by us in the place referred to. In his comment upon the historie of the two difciples, whom Jefus met in the way to Emmaus, one of whom is faid to be Cleophas, Luke xxiv. 18. Theophylact fays: "Some (t) have thought the other to be Luke the "Evangelift, who out of modeftie declined to mention himself." In his preface to the Acts Theophylact says: "The (u) writer is Luke, native of "Antioch, by profeffion a Physician."

Euthymius fays: "Luke (x) was a native of Antioch, and a Physician. He "was a hearer of Chrift, and, as fome fay, one of his feventy difciples, "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 "afcenfion."

So Euthymius. But I should think, that very few, who fuppofed Luke. to have been a native of Antioch, could likewife reckon him a hearer of Jefus Chrift. But Euthymius, as it feems, puts together every thing he had heard or read, without judgement or difcrimination.

What Nicephorus Callifti fays, is, briefly, to this purpose. "Two (y) "only of the Twelve, Matthew and John, left memoirs of our Lord's life "on earth and two of the Seventy, Mark and Luke.. Matthew wrote "about fifteen years after our Saviour's afcenfion. Long after that Mark "and Luke published their Gospels by the direction of Peter and Paul. "The fame Luke compofed alfo the book of the Acts of the Apo"ftles."

To these authors I now add Eutychius, Patriarch of Alexandria, in the tenth centurie, who fays: "In (z) the time of the fame Emperour, "(that is, Nero) Luke wrote his Gospel in Greek to a noble and wife man of the Romans, whofe name was Theophilus: to whom alfo he "wrote the Acts, or the hiftorie of the Difciples. The Evangelift Luke was a companion of the Apostle Paul, going with him where-ever he For which reafon the Apostle Paul in one of his epiftles fays:

❝ went.

"Luke, the Phyfician, falutes you.”

(x) P.437

III. Having

(1) P. 423.

) P. 442.

(u) P. 426. (x) Etiam tempore hujus Imperatoris fcripfit Lucas Evangelium fuum Græce, ad virum nobilem ex fapientibus Romanis, cui nomen Theophilus, ad quem item fcripfit Acta feu Difcipulorum hiftoriam. Erat autem Lucas Evangelifta comes Pauli Apoftoli, quocumque per aliquod tempus manfit. Unde eft, quod Paulus Apoftolus in quadam epiftola fua dicit, Lucas Medicus vos falutat. Eutych. Annal. p. 335.336.

III. Having thus recited the teftimonies of all these writers concerning the Evangelift Luke, I fhall now make fome remarks.

Remarks.

1. We hence perceive, that the notion, that St. Luke was a Painter, is without foundation, no notice having been taken of it in these ancient writers. Indeed this is faid by one of our (a) authors, Nicephorus Callifti, in the fourteenth centurie, from whom a paffage was quoted in the way of a fummarie conclufion. But we do not relye upon him for any thing not confirmed by other writers, more ancient, and of better credit. Nor is this account received by (b) Tillemont, or (c) Du Pin, but rejected by them as altogether fabulous, efpecially the later: though our Dr, Cave (d) was fomewhat inclined to admit one teftimonie to this affair, whilft he rejected the reft. For a farther account of St. Luke's pretended pictures of the Virgin Marie I refer to (e) Mr. Bower.

2. We learn alfo, what judgement ought to be formed of the account given of St. Luke by (ƒ) Hugo Grotius, and (g) 7. J. Wetstein: which is, that he was a Syrian, and a flave, either at Rome, or in Greece: and that having obtained his freedom, he returned to his native place, Anticb: where he became a Jewish Profelyte, and then a Chriftian. Which thofe

F 3

(α) . . ἄκρως δὲ τὴν ζωγράφην τέχνην ἐξεπισάμενος. Niceph. l. 2. cap. 43. Τ. ί.

.210.

(b) Saint Luc. Mem. Ec. T. 2.

Ce

(c) Nicephore et les nouveaux Grecs le font Peintre. Et il y a en differens endroits des images de la Vierge, qu'on donne pour l'ouvrage de S. Luc. font des fictions, qui n'ont ni verité ni apparence. Du Pin Di. 1. 2. eb. 2. §. 5.

(d) Of more authority with me would be an ancient infcription, found in a vault near the church of S. Mary in via lata at Rome, fuppofed to be the place, where S. Paul dwelt: wherein mention is made of a picture of the B. Virgin. Una ex vii. a B. Luca depictis: One of the feven painted by St. Luke. Cave's Lives of the Apostles, in English, p. 222.

(e) See his Lives of the Popes. Vol. 3. p. 205. 206.

(f) Noftro autem nomen quidem Romanum fuiffe arbitror, fed aliquanto longius.... Quare et Lucas, fi quid video, contractum eft ex Romano nomine, quod fufpicor fuiffe Lucillium. Nam ea gens tum Romæ florebat... Erat nofter hic Syrus, ut veteres confentiunt, et medicinam fecit.... Syria autem multos Romanis fervos exhibebat. Et medicina, ut ex Plinio atque aliis difcimus, munus erat fervile. Manumiffi autem nomen patroni induebant, at Comœdiarum fcriptor, Afer cum effet, dictus eft a patrono Terentio Terentius. . . . Ita hic a Lucillio Lucillius, et contracte Lucas. Credibile eft, cum Romæ medicinam factitaffet aliquamdiu, acceptâ libertate, rediiffe in patriam, &c. Grot. Pr. in S. Lucam.

(g) Exercuiffe medicinam Paulus ad Coloffenfes teftatur. Eufebius autem et Hieronymus addunt fuiffe natione Syrum Antiochenum. ... Interpretes porro conjectura probabili, tum ex nomine, tum ex arte quam profitebatur, colligunt, fuiffe fervum manumiffum. Obfervant enim primo, nomen ejus in compendium fuiffe redactum, ut pro Lucillio vel Lucano vocaretur Lucas.. Obfervant fecundo, fervos et præcipue Syros medicinam factitaffe.. Quod vero quidam exiftimant, eum Romæ ferviiffe, et a domino, qui ipfum manumiferit, nomine Lucam appellatum fuiffe, non fatis certum videtur. Nam præter familiam Lucilliam, quæ Romana fuit, etiam Græcis illud nomen fuit impofitum, ut ex Anthologia conftat. Werft. Pr. ad Luc. T. i. p. 643.

thofe learned interpreters endeavour to make out in a fomewhat different manner. But neither has alleged any ancient writer, faying, that the Evangelift Luke was once a flave, and afterwards became a free man. Some flaves indeed were skilful in the art of medicine, and practifed it in the families of their Roman mafters. But does it follow, that because Luke was a Phyfician, that he was also a flave? This therefore being entirely deftitute of foundation in antiquity must be esteemed the fiction of fome learned critic, who was much delighted with his own ingenious fpeculations.

3. The account given of this Evangelift by Eusebe, and Jerome after him, that he was a Syrian, and Native of Antioch, may be justly fufpected.

We do not find it in Irenæus, nor Clement of Alexandria, nor Tertullian, nor Origen, nor in any other writer before Eufebe. Probably, therefore, it is not founded in any general, or well attested tradition: but was the invention of fome conjectural critic, who having firft imagined, out of his own head, that Luke was originally a Gentil, at length determined, that he was converted by Paul at Antioch. But all this was taken up without any good ground, or fufficient authority. And Luke may have been a believer, before either Paul or Barnabas went to Antioch. The fame account is in Jerome. But he only follows Eufebe. He does not feem to have had any information about it from any others. Which is an argument, that there was not any early tradition to this purpose.

This ftorie, I fay, is in Eufebe, and Jerome, and fome others, after them, but not in all fucceeding writers. Some of the ancients, as Epiphanius, and others, fuppofed Luke to have been one of Christ's seventy difciples. Which is inconfiftent with his being a native of Antioch. If any did not fee this inconfiftence, and allowed both, it must have been owing to want of due attention and confideration. And the fuppofition, made by fome, that Luke was one of the Seventy, fhews, that there was no prevailing, and well attested tradition, that he was a native of Antioch. For if there had been any such tradition, it is not easie to conceive, how any should have held the opinion, that he was one of the Seventy.

It was formerly obferved, that (b) Chryfoftom no where fays in his remaining works, that Luke was of Antioch. Indeed we (i) have loft one of his homilies upon the title and begining of the Acts of the Apoftles. Nevertheless it seems, that in fome of his many homilies, ftill remaining upon that book, or elsewhere, we should have feen this particular, if it had been known to him. He takes notice, that (4) there might be feen in his time the house, in which Paul dwelled at Antioch. And he often fpeaks of the prerogatives of that city in his homilies preached there. Methinks, this alfo fhould have been mentioned as one: that Luke, whom (as is well known) he often celebrates, was a native of that city. If this had been then known, or generally believed, it is reafonable to expect, that it should have been frequently mentioned by Chryfoftem, a native and Prefbyter of Antioch, who fhined there as a Preacher twelve. years

(b) Fol. x. p. 328.

(i) P. 323.

(k) P. 371.

years. This has difpofed me to think, that in his time there was not at Antioch any prevailing tradition to this purpose.

Cave fays, it (/) is likely, that Luke was converted by Paul at Antioch. Mill (m) fays the fame, rather more pofitively. Which may now be the opinion of many. I have gueffed, that it might be the opinion of the perfon, who first gave rife to the account, that Luke was a Syrian, of Antioch, mentioned in Eufebe. But I do not remember, that this is exprefsly faid by any of the ancient writers, out of whom I have made fo large collections in the preceding volumes. And the thing is altogether unlikely. If Luke had been a Gentil, converted by Paul, he would have been always uncircumcifed, and unfit to accompany Paul, as he did. For the Apoftle would not have allowed the Greeks, or Gentils, of Antioch, or any other place, to receive that rite. Nor are there in the Acts, or Paul's epiftles, any hints, that Luke was his convert. Whereas, if he had been fo, there (c) would have appeared fome tokens of it in the affectionate expreffions of Paul toward him on the one hand, or in the refpectful and grateful expreffions of Luke toward Paul, on the other hand.

4. It has been reckoned doubtful by divers learned men, whether the Evangelift Luke was a Phyfician.

This particular is different from the fore going. Nor has it any connexion with it. Luke may have been of Antioch, and not a Phyfician. He may have been a Phyfician, and not of Antioch. The question is, whether Luke, the beloved Physician, mentioned by St. Paul, Col. iv. 14. be the Evangelist. Divers of the ancients, as we have feen, have fuppofed him there intended. Chryfoftom's expreffions are thefe: "This (n) is the "Evangelift. But he does not diminish him by naming him fo late. He "extols him, as he does Epaphras. It is likely, that there were others. "called by that name." This last particular, perhaps, may deferve to be taken notice of. He affirms, that this is the Evangelift. But he fuppofeth, that there were others of the fame name.

That diftinguishing character, beloved Phyfician, not given to the Apoftle's companion, and fellow laborer, in any other epille, has induced divers learned and inquifitive moderns, to doubt, whether one and. the

F 4

(/) ... a D. Paulo, dum Antiochiæ ageret, (uti verifimile eft) converfus. Hift. Lit. T. i. p. 25.

(m) Scriptor operi huic fufcipiendo, fi quis unquam, fumme idoneus: utpote qui ab ipfo tempore converfionis, quæ contigit circa annum æræ vulgaris XLI. Ipfum enim incais iftis, qui magno numero Antiochiæ converfi funt, [Act. xi. 20.] omnino adnumerârim. Prol. n. 112.

(c) This thought occurred to Dr. Whitby, who in his preface to St. Luke's' Gofpel fpeaks to this purpose: "We are told, that Luke was converted by "Paul at Thebes. Anfwer. But this we have only from Nicephorus. And it "is the lefs credible, not only because it comes to us fo late but alfo "becaufe it appears not from any credible author, that St. Paul ever was "there. It is more probable from the filence of St. Luke and St. Paul, who "never calleth him his fon, that he was a Chriftian, or a believer, long be "fore."

(α) Ουτός ἐσιν ὁ εὐαγγελική; . . εἰκός εἶναι καὶ ἄλλως καλυμένες τῷ ὀνόματι τότε, Chry. in Col. iv. bom. 12. T. xi. p. 412.