7 says, In the time of the same emperor, (that is, Nero) Luke wrote his gospel in Greek to ⚫ a notable and wise man of the Romans, whose name was Theophilus: to whom also he wrote the Acts, or the history of the disciples. The evangelist Luke was a companion of the apostle Paul, going with him wherever he went. For which reason the apostle Paul in one of his epistles says: "Luke, the physician, salutes you."' III. Having thus recited the testimonies of all these writers concerning the evangelist Luke, I shall now make some remarks. с 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 said by one of our authors, Nicephorus Callisti, in the fourteenth century, from whom a passage was quoted in the way of a summary conclusion. But we do not rely upon him for any thing not confirmed by other writers, more ancient, and of better credit. Nor is this account received by Tillemont, or Du Pin, but rejected by them, as altogether fabulous, especially the latter; though our Dr. Cave was somewhat inclined to admit one testimony to this affair, whilst he rejected the rest. For a farther account of St. Luke's pretended pictures of the Virgin Mary Í refer tof Mr. Bower. e h 2. We learn also, what judgment ought to be formed of the account given of St. Luke by • Hugo Grotius, and J. J. Wetstein: which is, that he was a Syrian and a slave, either at Rome, or in Greece: and that having obtained his freedom, he returned to his native place, Antioch; where he became a Jewish proselyte, and then a Christian. Which those learned interpreters endeavour to make out in a somewhat different manner. But neither has alleged any ancient writer, saying, that the evangelist Luke was once a slave, and afterwards became a free-man. Some slaves indeed were skilful in the art of medicine, and practised it in the families of their Roman masters. But does it follow, that because Luke was a physician, that he was also a slave? This therefore being entirely destitute of foundation in antiquity must be esteemed the fiction of some learned critic, who was much delighted with his own ingenious speculations. 3. The account given of this evangelist by Eusebius, and Jerom after him, that he was a Syrian, and native of Antioch, may be justly suspected. We do not find it in Irenæus, nor Clement of Alexandria, nor Tertullian, nor Origen, nor in any other writer before Eusebius. Probably, therefore, it is not founded in any general, or well attested tradition: but was the invention of some conjectural critic, who having first imagined, out of his own head, that Luke was originally a Gentile, at length determined, that he was converted by Paul at Antioch. But all this was taken up without any good ground, or sufficient authority: and Luke may have been a believer, before either Paul or Barnabas went to Antioch. The same account is in Jerom: but he only follows Eusebius. He does not seem to have had any information about it from any others: which is an argument, that there was not any early tradition to this Nicéphore et les nouveaux Grecs le font peintre. Et il y a en différens endroits des images de la Vierge, qu'on donne pour l'ouvrage de S. Luc. Ce sont des fictions, qui n'ont ni vérité ni apparence. Du Pin Diss. 1. 2. ch. 2. sect. 5. Of more authority with me would be an ancient inscription, found in a vault near the church of S. Mary in via lata at Rome, supposed to be the place, where S. Paul dwelt: wherein mention is made of a picture of the B. Virgin, una ex vii, a B. Lucâ depictis: one of the seven painted by St. Luke. Cave's Lives of the Apostles, in English, p. 222. See his Lives of the Popes, Vol. III. p. 205, 206. Nostro autem nomen quidem Romanum fuisse arbitror, sed aliquanto longius....Quare et Lucas, si quid video, con purpose. tractum est ex Romano nomine, quod suspicor fuisse Lucillium. Nam ea gens tum Romæ florebat.... Erat noster hic Syrus, ut veteres consentiunt, et medicinam fecit.... Syria autem multos Romanis servos exhibebat. Et medicina, ut ex Plinio atque aliis discimus, munus erat servile. Manumissi autem nomen patroni induebant, ut comœdiarum scriptor, Afer cum esset, dictus est a patrono Terentio Terentius.... Ita hic a Lucillio Lucillius, et contracte A8xas. Credibile est, cum Romæ medicinam factitasset aliquamdiu, accepta libertate, rediisse in patriam, &c. Grot. Pr. in S. Lucam. h Exercuisse medicinam Paulus ad Colossenses testatur; Eusebius autem et Hieronymus addunt fuisse natione Syrum Antiochenum.... Interpretes porro conjecturâ probabili, tum ex nomine, tum ex arte quam profitebatur, colligunt, fuisse servum manumissum. Observant enim primo, nomen ejus in compendium fuisse redactum, ut pro Lucillio vel Lucano vocaretur Lucas.... Observant secundo, servos et præcipuè Syros medicinam factitâsse.... Quod vero quidam existimant, eum Romæ serviisse, et a domino, qui ipsum manumiserit; nomine Lucam appellatum fuisse, non satis certum videtur. Nam, præter familiam Lucilliam, quæ Romana fuit, etiam Græcis illud nomen fuit impositum, ut ex Anthologiâ constat. Wetst. Pr. ad Lue. T. I. p. 643. 192 This story, I say, is in Eusebius, and Jerom, and some others after them, but not in all succeeding writers. Some of the ancients, as Epiphanius, and others, supposed Luke to have been one of Christ's seventy disciples: which is inconsistent with his being a native of Antioch. If any did not see this inconsistency, and allowed both, it must have been owing to want of due attention and consideration. And the supposition, made by some, that Luke was one of the seventy, shews, 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 easy to conceive, how any should have held the opinion, that he was one of the seventy. a b с It was formerly observed, that Chrysostom no where says in his remaining works, that Luke was of Antioch. Indeed, we have lost one of his homilies upon the title and beginning of the Acts of the apostles. Nevertheless, it seems, that in some of his many homilies, still remaining upon that book, or elsewhere, we should have seen this particular, if it had been known to him. He takes notice, that there might be seen in his time the house, in which Paul dwelled at Antioch. And he often speaks of the prerogatives of that city, in his homilies preached there. Methinks this also should 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 reasonable to expect, that it should have been frequently mentioned by Chrysostom, a native and presbyter of Antioch, who shined there as a preacher twelve years. This has disposed me to think, that in his time there was not at Antioch any prevailing tradition to this purpose. Cave says, it is likely, that Luke was converted by Paul at Antioch. Mille rather more positively which may now be the opinion of many. might be the opinion of the person, who first gave rise to the account, that Luke was a Syrian, says the same, of Antioch, mentioned in Eusebius. But I do not remember, that this is expressly said by I have guessed, that it any of the ancient writers, out of whom I have made so large collections in the preceding volumes; and the thing is altogether unlikely. If Luke had been a Gentile, converted by Paul, he would have been always uncircumcised, and unfit to accompany Paul, as he did. For the apostle would not have allowed the Greeks, or Gentiles, of Antioch, or any other place, to receive that rite. Nor are there in the Acts, or Paul's epistles, any hints that Luke was his convert. Whereas, if he had been so, there would have appeared some tokens of it in the affectionate expressions of Paul toward him on the one hand, or in the respectful and grateful expressions of Luke toward Paul on the other hand. f 4. It has been reckoned doubtful by divers learned men, whether the evangelist Luke was a physician. This particular is different from the foregoing. Nor has it any connection with it. Luke may have been of Antioch, and not a physician. He may have been a physician, 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 seen, have supposed him there intended. Chrysostom's expressions are these: This is the evangelist: but he does not diminish him by naming him so late; he extols him, as he does Epaphras. It is likely, that there were others by that name.' notice of. He affirms, that this is the evangelist; but he supposeth, that there were others of This last particular, perhaps, may deserve to be taken the same name. h That distinguishing character, beloved physician, not given to the apostle's companion, and fellow-labourer, in any other epistle, has induced divers learned and inquisitive moderns to doubt, whether one and the same person is intended. Among these are Calvin, 'Sam. Basa Vol. ii. 605. .d ...a D. Paulo, dum Antiochiæ ageret, (uti verisimile est) c P. 614. conversus. Hist. Lit. T. I. p. 25. e P. b P. 604. Scriptor operi huic suscipiendo, si quis unquam, summe idoneus; utpote qui ab ipso tempore conversionis, quæ contigit circa annum æræ vulgaris XLI. Ipsum enim Eλλnvisais istis, qui magno numero Antiochiæ conversi sunt, [Act. xi. 20.] omnino adnumerârim. Prol. n. 112. This thought occurred to Dr. Whitby, who, in his preface to St. Luke's gospel, speaks to this purpose: told that Luke was converted by Paul at Thebes. Answer. • We are But this we have only from Nicephorus. And it is the less credible, not only because it comes to us so late, but also 'because it appears not from any credible author, that St. Paul ever was there. It is more probable from the silence of St. Luke, and St. Paul, who never calleth him his son, that he was a Christian, or a believer, long before.' * Οὗτος εσιν ὁ ευαγγελισης . . . είκος είναι και άλλες καλά MEVES TW OVOμATI 787w. Chry, in Col. iv. hom. 12. T. XI. p. 412. h Non assentior iis, qui Lucam Evangelistam intelligunt. Nam et notiorem fuisse judico, quam ut opus fuerit tali indicatione, et splendidiore elogio fuisset insignitus. Certe coadjutorem suum, aut fidum saltem comitem, et certaminum participem, vocâsset. Potius conjicio, hunc abfuisse, et alterum medici epitheto ab illo discerni.. Quamquam non con с nage, Dr. Heumann, whose observations and arguments I transcribe below. On the other hand Estius, and Mr. Jones, strongly argue, that the same Luke is here intended, who is mentioned by St. Paul in some other epistles, even our evangelist. Upon the whole it must be acknowledged, that this distinguishing character, beloved physician,' has occasioned a difficulty. Nevertheless, I would hope, that it is not insuperable. It is allowed, that in all other places of St. Paul's epistles by Luke is intended the evangelist. We know from the book of the Acts, that Luke, the writer of it, went with Paul to Rome, and stayed with him to the end of his captivity there; nor is there any reason to surmise, that at the time of writing this epistle he might be absent from the apostle upon some special occasion: for he joins in the salutations in the epistle to Philemon of Colosse, sent at the same time with this epistle to the Colossians, where also he is styled a fellow-labourer.' Philem. ver. 24. So that I cannot but think it probable, that Luke the evangelist was by profession a physician. 5. St. Luke was a Jew by birth, at least by religion. None of the writers out of whom we have made collections, call him a Gentile. Some, in Jerom's time, whose names we do not know, said, Luke had been a Jewish proselyte, that is, had been converted from Gentilism to Judaism, and afterwards became a Christian: but none, that I remember, expressly say that he was converted from Gentilism to Christianity; unless we should make an exception for Nicephorus Callisti, who in one place says so. But he is too late, and of too little credit to be much regarded: especially if he be singular. All our writers, who speak of Luke as a companion and disciple of apostles, must have supposed him to be a Jew and some have said that he was one of the seventy, as we have seen. That Luke was a Jew by birth, or at least by religion, may be argued from his being a constant companion of Paul in many places, particularly at Jerusalem. If Luke had been an uncircumcised Gentile, some exceptions would have been made to him. Nevertheless nothing of that kind appears either in St. Paul's epistles or in the Acts. Another thing leading to this supposition is his following the Jewish computations of times: such as the passover, pentecost, the fast. Of all which instances may be seen in Acts xii. 3; xx. 6 and 16; xxvii. 9. d e Here it will be objected, that "Luke the physician," mentioned Col. iv. 14, must have been a Gentile, because at ver. 10, 11, the apostle had mentioned "all those of the circumcision, who were his fellow-workers, and had been a comfort to him.". To which I answer. It is not certain, that Luke, the evangelist, is the "beloved physician," there spoken of: we just now saw the reasons of doubting about it. But there is another solution. St. Paul needs not to be understood to speak absolutely: there might be several exceptions to that proposition. Timothy was one, who joins with the apostle in sending the epistle: but he and Luke were so well known to all, as faithful to the apostle, that they needed not to be there mentioned. And Luke and Demas follow afterwards, somewhat lower, nearer the end of the epistle, very properly, ver. 14, "Luke the beloved physician, and Demas greet you." And I should be unwilling from this text, and the coherence, to conclude, that Demas was a Gentile. Says the apostle: Philem. ver. 24, "There salute thee Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Lucas, my fellowlabourers." The two first named were certainly Jews: I suppose, the other two were so likewise. Salutations from believers, of the Jewish people, would be very acceptable and encouraging to Gentile converts. tendo, ut de re certâ, sed tamen conjecturas affero. Calvin. in Col. iv. 14. i Sunt tamen in Scripturâ Lucam Evangelistam a Lucâ Medico distinguendi causæ, &c. Basnag. Ann. 60. n. xxxiii. a Lucam Evangelistam fuisse medicum, Hieronymus aliique probari posse credunt ex Col. iv. 14. Sed ex hoc ipso loco confirmari posse puto contrarium. Si enim isto loco Paulus innuisset comitem suum omnibus notum, Lucam Evangelistam, simpliciter vocâsset Lucam, uti fecit, 2 Tim. iv. 11. At, ut significaret, se de alio Lucâ loqui, discriminis causâ addit tarpos. C. A. Heuman. Ep. Misc. T. II. p. 518. Sunt qui in dubium revocent, num de Lucâ Evangelistâ loquatur Apostolus. Hunc enim dicunt notiorem fuisse, quam ut artis nomine eum designaret. Ac saltem, inquiunt, eum coadjutorem suum, aut fidelem comitem, vocâsset. Verum, ut vetus et communis, ita probatissima sententia est.... Lucam Evangelistam medicum fuisse, et eum ipsum, cujus hic VOL. III. mentio est; (neque enim alium Lucam Paulo familiarem ulla prodit historia.) Quod vero tacuit hoc loco adjutorem, id diserte expressit ad Philemonem scribens, Demas et Lu'cas, adjutores mei.' Non enim putavit Apostolus rem satis notam ubique inculcandam esse. Ubi illud observandum est, Apostolum assidue Lucam cum Demâ nominare, tam hoc loco, et ad Philemonem, quam etiam in secundâ ad Tim. ep. cap. iv. Quis ergo dixerit, alium atque alium esse Lucam cum eodem Demâ nominatum? Com. in Col. iv. 14. c See Mr. Jones's New and Full Method, Vol. III. p. 103, 104. d Quis vero cum veri specie aliquâ Lucam Evangelistam unum ex Judæis fuisse neget? Lucam, qui in designandis temporibus Judæorum disciplinam adhibet, Pentecostem scilicet, jejunium, tertiam noctis vigiliam; quæ omnia ex Judaïco more petuntur. Basnag. An. 60. n. xxxiii. e Adde, quod iste sermo, hi soli,' non est ita rigide accipiendus, ut absolute excludat omnes alios, sed berigno sensu: hi fere soli sunt adjutores. Est. ad iv. Cel. 11. 2 с St. Luke says, Acts i. 19, " insomuch as that field was called in their proper tongue Aceldama:" whence some may argue, that he was a Jew. But it might be observed, that none of the evangelists, when they speak of the Jews, say any thing, to denote they were of that people. Says St. Matthew, ch. xxviii. 15, " And this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day." Mark vii. 3, "For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands, eat not." John i. 19, "The Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem," ch. v. 1, "After this there was a feast of the Jews." See also ch. xix. 40-42. And does not St. Paul say, 1 Thess. ii. 14, 15, "Ye became followers of the churches of God in Judea. For ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they of the Jews: who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets." It might not be amiss to observe also Acts xxviii. 17-19. And I might refer to other places. d That this evangelist was a Jew, is the opinion of many learned and judicious moderns; particularly Mr. S. Basnage, whom I have cited at note p. 193, and J. A. Fabricius, who likewise is clearly of the same opinion. Indeed I think it ought not to be questioned. 6. Luke the evangelist was probably an early Jewish believer, soon after Christ's ascension, if not a hearer of Christ, and one of the seventy disciples. Our most ancient writers, as we have seen, speak of Luke as a disciple of the apostles. Some have reckoned him one of the seventy, others have thought him to be Lucius, mentioned by St. Paul in the epistle to the Romans, and others have supposed that he was one of the two disciples that met Jesus in the way to Emmaus. وو The large accounts which Luke has given in the book of the Acts of several below the rank of apostles, has made me think, that he was one of the same rank, and possibly one of them. There are three instances of this kind. The first is Stephen, one of the seven deacons, who, as we learn, "was full of faith and power, and did great wonders and miracles among the people: " against whom there arose a strong opposition, so that he was the very first martyr for Christ and his doctrine, and of whom St. Luke has recorded a long discourse before the Jewish council, ch. vii. The second is Philip, another of the seven, of whom St. Luke writes, that he first preached Christ to the Samaritans, ch. viii. 5-8; " so that the people with one accord gave heed to those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did; and what follows. The same Philip_afterwards, having first explained the scriptures to him, and brought him to sincere faith in Jesus as the Christ, baptized the chamberlain and treasurer of the queen of Ethiopia, a Jewish proselyte, and a man of great distinction, ver. 26-40. The third instance of this kind is that of the men of Cyprus and Cyrene, "who travelled as far as Phenice, Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to Jews only." Who soon after their coming to "Antioch, spake unto the Greeks, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them; and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord," ch. xi. 19-21. These were the men who first preached to Gentiles out of Judea as Peter was the first who preached to Gentiles at the house of Cornelius in Cæsarea, ch. x. and not long before them. We have, as it seems, the names of three of those men. Ch. xiii. 1, Simeon, called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen." The second person here named may be our evangelist. A like argument may be formed in favour of St. Luke's having been one of Christ's seventy disciples, in that he, and he only of all the evangelists, has inserted in his gospel an account of the commission which Christ gave unto them, ch. x. 1-20. And indeed some learned men of later times, as well as formerly, have been of opinion that Luke was one of the seventy. Among these is our Dr. Whitby, who reckoned both Mark and Luke to have been of that number. J. A. Fabricius was inclined to be of the same opinion. And in favour of it refers to the passages of Adamantius and Epiphanius, before taken notice of by us. This likewise was the sentiment of Mr. Basnage. b a Lucas, sive Lucius,...incertum, num idem cum Lucâ medico, Col. iv. 14, quin Judæus fuerit, at antequam Christo nomen daret, ne dubito quidem, præcipue si verum est quod legas in Origenis sive Adamantii cujusdam dialogis, adversus Marcionitas, et Epiphanii LI. II. eum fuisse e numero LXX. discipulorum. Bib. Gr. 1. 4. c. v. T. III. p. 132. See his Preface to St. Luke's gospel. ... præcipue, si verum est, quod legas` in Origenis seu Adamantii cujusdam Dialogis adversus Marcionitas, et Epi- Dr. C. A. Heumann has lately published a dissertation concerning Christ's seventy disciples, containing many curious observations: and he supposeth that these several following were of that. number. Matthias, chosen in the room of the traitor, Joseph, called Barsabas, surnamed Justus, and probably the seven deacons, or however some of them, and the four teachers and prophets of Antioch, Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, whom he thinks to be our Luke the evangelist, and Manaen. Acts xiii. 1. His argument is to this purpose. We have not in the gospels the names of those disciples; nor did Christ form a college or company of them, as he did of the twelve, because it was a temporary office, which subsisted for a short time only. They were but once sent forth; and when they were returned, their commission was at an end, Nevertheless they hereby became qualified for public service: and it may be reckoned very probable, that if an opportunity was afforded, they would be very willing, after Christ's ascension, to exert themselves in his cause. And it is very likely that some of these seventy were. chosen, and employed by the apostles as men who had been already exercised in the service of the gospel, and were thereby fitted for farther usefulness. So that learned writer. And it must be acknowledged, that this is a specious argument: but it is rather founded in an ingenious speculation, than in the authority of testimony; which, in this case, would be more valuable. b Indeed Epiphanius, beside the places formerly alleged, where he says, Mark and Luke were of the seventy, has another, where he mentions a great many who were said to be of that number: as the seven deacons, all whom he mentions by name, and also Matthias, Mark, Luke, Justus, Barnabas, Apelles, Rufus, Niger. And therefore, we cannot deny, that in the time of Epiphanius, there were some, who entertained an opinion, that all these were of Christ's seventy disciples. Nevertheless, we do not find it in Irenæus, or Clement of Alexandria, or Origen, or any others of the highest antiquity, and best credit: nor in Eusebius, or Jerom, that I remember, who were acquainted with the writings of those ancient authors, and many others, which are not come to us. Eusebius has a chapter concerning the disciples of our Saviour: he says, the names of Christ's twelve apostles were well known; but there was no where any catalogue of the seventy. However, he mentions Barnabas, Matthias, and the disciple put up with him, and one. or two more, who were said to be of the seventy: but he takes not here any notice of Mark, or Luke, or of any of the seven deacons. Matthias and Barsabas certainly were such men, as are described Acts i. 21, 22, and they may have been of the seventy: but we cannot be certain, because we have not been assured of it by any accounts, that demand full assent. Some of the seven deacons may have been of the seventy, as Stephen and Philip; but we do not know that they were. It is very probable, that all those deacons were not of the seventy, particularly, Nicolas, a proselyte, of Antioch. If Luke, the evangelist, be the same as Lucius, of Cyrene, there ariseth a strong objection against his having been one of the seventy. Simeon, called Niger, and Lucius, of Cyrene, mentioned Acts xiii. 1, and "the men of Cyprus and Cyrene," (of whom those two just mentioned, were a part,) were early believers, after Christ's ascension, and they may have heard and seen the Lord in person: but they cannot be well supposed to have been of the seventy. Christ's twelve apostles were of Galilee: it is likely, that the seventy also were of the same country, or near it. Christ sent them forth from him, to go over the land of Israel, and to return to him in a short time, where he should be: and his usual residence was in Galilee. It does not appear to me at all probable, that our Lord put into that commission any men, who were born, and usually resided abroad, in other countries, out of the land of Israel. Hitherto, then, we have not any full proof, that our evangelist was one of the seventy. Let us proceed. St. Luke ch. xxiv. 13-34, relates how two disciples met Jesus after his resurrection, as they were going to Emmaus. And he says, that the name of one of them was Cleopas. Theophylact in his comment upon this place, as formerly shown, observes: Some say, that one of these two was Luke himself: but that the evangelist concealed his own name.' Nicephorus с |