Acts xvi. 10, 11. Whereby it appears, that he was in Paul's company at Troas, before the apostle took shipping to go into Macedonia: in which voyage St. Luke was one of the company, ver. 8, "And they, passing by Mysia, came to Troas." Ver. 9, "And a vision appeared to Paul in the night: There stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed him, saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us." Ver. 10, "And when he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering, that the Lord had called us to preach the gospel to them." Ver. 11,"Therefore loosing from Troas, we came with a straight course to Samothracia."

In that journey St. Paul went from Samothracia to Neapolis, and thence to Philippi, 11–17. So far St. Luke speaks in the first person plural. But having finished his account of the transactions at Philippi, which reaches to ver. 40, the last of that chapter: at the beginning of the next ch. xvii. 1, he changeth the person, and says: "Now when they had passed through Amphipolis, and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews."

Nor does he any more expressly speak of himself, until Paul was a second time in Greece, and was setting out for Jerusalem with the collections, which had been made for the poor saints in Judea, Acts xx. 1-6, "And after the discipulus fuerat Antiochiæ. Annal. Paulin. p. 10. But it is not safe to rely upon one manuscript only, different from all others, and of no great authority. As Mr. Tillemont took notice of this observation of Pearson, I transcribe his thoughts about it. Selon le manuscrit de Cambridge, S. Luc dit qu'il étoit avec S. Paul à Antioche, dès l'an 43: ce que Pearson a reçu. Mais il ne seroit pas sûr de fier à un manuscrit différent de tous les autres. Et quand cela se pourroit en quelques occasions, ce ne seroit pas à l'égard du manuscrit de Cambridge, qui est plein d'additiones et altérations contraires au véritable texte de S. Luc. Mem. Ec. T. 2. S. Luc. note iii. Some may argue from these words, that Luke was a Gentile, converted by Paul at Antioch. And others might argue that he is the same as Lucius, mentioned, Acts xiii. 1. But I should think it best for neither side to form an argument from this reading. Mr. Wetstein has referred us to a place of St. Augustine, where this text is quoted very agreeably to the Cambridge manuscript. In illis autem diebus descenderunt ab Jerosolymis prophetæ Antiochiam. Congregatis autem nobis, surgens unus ex illis, nomine Agabus, &c. De Serm. Dom. 1. 2. c. 17. But it is observable, that Irenæus, l. 3. c. 14. init. a more ancient writer, enumerating St. Luke's journeys in St. Paul's company, begins at Troas. Acts xvi. 8-10. I presume, it must be best to rely upon him, and the general consent of all manuscripts, except one, in the common reading.

b Nevertheless it is supposed by many, that Luke continued with Paul. Irenæus calls him Paul's inseparable companion, after his coming to be with the Apostle at Troas. Adv. H. 1. 3. c. 14. So likewise Cave. Cujus perinde sectator erat, et omnis peregrinationis comes. H. L. T. 1. p. 25. See also Tillem. St. Luc. Mem. Ec. T. 2.

uproar" [at Ephesus]" was ceased, Paul called unto him the disciples and embraced them, and departed for to go into Macedonia. And when he had gone over those parts, and had given them much exhortation, he came into Greece, and there abode three months. And when the Jews laid wait for him, as he was about to sail into Syria, he purposed to return through Macedonia. And there accompanied him into Asia, Sopater of Berea.-These going before, tarried for us at Troas. And we sailed away from Philippi-and came unto them at Troas in five days, where we abode seven days." So that Luke accompanied Paul, at that time, from Greece through Macedonia to Philippi, and also went with him from thence to Troas.

And it appears from the sequel of the history in the Acts, that Luke was one of those, who accompanied the apostle to Jerusalem, and stayed with him there. And when the apostle was sent a prisoner from Cæsarea to Rome, he was in the same ship with him, and stayed with him at Rome during the whole time of his two years' imprisonment there, with which the history of the Acts concludes.

From St. Paul's epistles written at Rome, in the time of that confinement, we have proofs of Luke's being with him. He is mentioned as with the apostle, 2 Tim. iv. 11; an epistle written, as I suppose, in the summer after the apostle's arrival there. In Philem. ver. 24, he is one of those who send salutations to Philemon, and is mentioned by the apostle as one of his fellow-labourers. And, if Luke the beloved physician, mentioned, Col. iv. 14, be the evangelist, that is another proof of his being then with the apostle.

St. Luke is also supposed by some to be "the brother, whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches," 2 Cor. viii. 18, but that is not certain.

As I think, that all St. Paul's epistles, which we have, were written before he left Rome and Italy, when he had been sent thither by Festus, I must be of opinion, that the New Testament affords us not any materials for the history of St. Luke, lower than his own book of the Acts, which brings us down to the end of that period.

II. I now therefore proceed, without farther delay, to observe what light may be obtained from ancient christian writers. And as St. Luke's two books, his gospel and the Acts, were all along universally received; I intend here, for avoiding prolixity, to allege, chiefly, such passages only, as contain something relating to the his

tory and character of St. Luke, or the time of writing his two above-named works.

Irenæus as before quoted: And Luke the companion ' of Paul, put down in a book the gospel preached by him.' And the coherence seems to imply, that this was done after the writing of St. Mark's gospel, and after the death of Peter and Paul. In a passage formerly cited at length, Irenæus shows from the Acts, as we did just now, that Luke attended Paul in several of his journies and voyages, and was his fellow-labourer in the gospel. He likewise says that Luke was not only a companion, but also a fellowlabourer of the apostles, especially of Paul.' Again, he calls him a disciple and follower of the apostles.' Thes apostles, he says, envying none, plainly delivered to all the things which they had learned from the Lord. So likewise Luke, envying no man, has delivered to us what he learned from them, as he says: "Even as they de"livered them unto us, who from the beginning were eye'witnesses and ministers of the word."" By all which it seems, that Irenæus reckoned Luke to have been a disciple of the apostles, not a hearer of Jesus Christ himself.

6

f

Clement of Alexandria has borne a large testimony to this gospel, and the Acts, as well as to the other books of the New Testament. And as we learn from Eusebius, in his "Institutions he mentions a tradition concerning the order ' of the gospels, which he had received from presbyters of more ancient times, and which is to this purpose. He says that the gospels containing the genealogies were written 'first' according to that tradition therefore St. Matthew's and St. Luke's gospels were written before St. Mark's. Which, according to the same Clement and the tradition received by him, was written at Rome, at the request of Peter's hearers, or the christians in that city.

Tertullian speaks of Matthew and John as disciples of Christ, of Mark and Luke as disciples of apostles: therefore I think he did not reckon these to have been of the seventy, or hearers of Christ. However, he ascribes a like authority to these, and says, that the gospel which Mark "published, may be said to be Peter's, whose interpreter

• Vol. ii. p. 170.

• P. 174.

a P. 173, 174.

f P. 173.

• Sicapostoli simpliciter, nemini invidentes quæ didicerant ipsi a Domino, hæc omnibus tradebant. Sic igitur et Lucas, nemini invidens, ea quæ ab eis didicerat, tradidit nobis, sicut ipse testatur dicens: Quemadmodum tradiderunt nobis qui ab initio contemplatores et ministri fuerunt verbi. Adv. H. 1. 3. cap. 14. n. 2.

h Vol. ii. p. 225.

VOL. V.

¡P. 278, 279.
2 A

* P. 276,

6

Mark was. For Luke's digest also is often ascribed to 'Paul. And indeed it is easy to take that for the master's which the disciples published.' Again: Moreover1 'Luke was not an apostle, but apostolical; not a master, 'but a disciple: certainly less than his master, certainly so much later, as he is a follower of Paul, the last of the 'apostles.' This likewise shows Tertullian's notion of St. Luke's character.

m

n

Origen mentions the gospels in the order now generally received. The third, says he, is that according to Luke, 'the gospel commended by Paul, published for the sake of 'the Gentile converts.' In his commentary upon the epistle to the Romans, which we now have in a Latin version only, he says, upon ch. xvi. 21, "Some say Lucius is Lucas the evangelist, as indeed it is not uncommon to write ' names sometimes according to the original form, some'times according to the Greek or Roman termination." Lucius, mentioned in that text of the epistle to the Romans, must have been a Jew. Nevertheless, as Origen assures us, some thought him to be Luke the evangelist. The same observation we saw in Sedulius, who wrote a commentary upon St. Paul's epistles, collected out of Origen and others.

Eusebius of Cæsarea, as transcribed formerly, speaking of St. Paul's fellow-labourers, says, And P Luke, who was ' of Antioch, and by profession a physician, for the most 'part a companion of Paul, who had likewise a more than 'slight acquaintance with the rest of the apostles, has left 'us in two books, divinely inspired, evidences of the art of healing souls, which he had learned from them. One of 'these is the gospel which he professeth to have written, as they delivered it to him, " who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word:" with all whom, be says likewise, he had been perfectly acquainted from 'the very first. The other is the Acts of the Apostles, which 'he composed now, not from what he had received by the ' report of others, but from what he had seen with his own 6 eyes.' And in another place, cited also formerly, he observes, that Luke had delivered in his gospel a certain 1 Vol. ii. p. 278,279.

m P. 494.

Sed et Lucium quidam perhibent esse Lucam evangelistam, qui evangelium scripsit, pro eo quod soleant nomina interdum secundum patriam declinationem, interdum Græcam Romanamque, proferri. In Rom. T. 2. p.

632. Basil. 1571.

T

• Vol. v. p. 58.

P Vo!. iv. p. 100.

↑ P. 96. -Τον ασφαλη λογον ων αυτος ίκανως την αληθειαν κατειληφει, εκ της άμα Παυλῳ συνουσίας τε και διατριβης, κα της των λοιπων αποστ

' account of such things, as he had been well assured of by 'his intimate acquaintance and familiarity with Paul, and his conversation with the other apostles.' From all which, I think it appears that Eusebius did not take Luke for a disciple of Christ, but of apostles only.

In the Synopsis, ascribed to Athanasius, it is said, that 'the gospel of Luke was dictated by the apostle Paul, and 'written and published by the blessed apostle and physician

'Luke.'

The author of the Dialogue against the Marcionites, says, 'that Mark and Luke were disciples of Christ, and of the number of the seventy.'

Epiphanius" speaks to the like purpose.

V

Gregory Nazianzen says, that Luke wrote for the 'Greeks,' or in Achaia.

6

Gregory Nyssen says, that Luke was as much a physician for the soul as for the body:' taking him to be the same that is mentioned, Col. iv. 14.

In the catalogue of Ebedjesu it is said that Luke 'taught and wrote at Alexandria, in the Greek lan'guage.'

The author of the Commentary upon St. Paul's thirteen epistles seems to have doubted whether the evangelist Luke be the person intended, Col. iv. 14.

6

Jerom agrees very much with Eusebius, already transcribed: nevertheless I shall put down here somewhat largely what he says. Luke, a physician of Antioch, not ' unskilful in the Greek language, a disciple of the apostle Paul, and the constant companion of his travels, wrote a 'gospel, and another excellent volume, entitled the Acts of the Apostles. It is supposed that Luke did not learn 'his gospel from the apostle Paul only, who had not con' versed with the Lord in the flesh, but also from other apostles: which likewise he owns at the beginning of his volume, saying, "Even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers ' of the word." Therefore he wrote the gospel from the in'formation of others: but the Acts he composed from his ' own knowledge.' So writes Jerom in his Book of Illustrious Men.

6

In the prologue to his Commentary upon St. Matthew, he

τολων ὁμιλιας ωφελημένος, δια τα ίδια παρέδωκεν ευαγγελιο. Η. Ε. 1. 3.

c. 24. p. 96. c.

• Vol. iv. p. 165.

▾ P. 287.

y P. 383, 384.