CH. VIII. 31.) Ch. xvi. 3. 4. And they faid among themselves: Who shall roll us away the ftone from the door of the fepulchre? For it was very great. In no other Evangelift.

32.) Ch. xvi. 7. But go your way. Tell his difciples, and Peter, that be goes before you into Galilee. The mention of Peter is peculiar to St. Mark. For in Matt. xxviii. 7. it is: Go quickly, and tell his difciples.. St. Luke has not recorded that meffage.

33.) I add nothing more of this kind. I have omitted many things, which are in this Gospel, and no other, being apprehenfive, that if I enlarged farther, I fhould be charged with prolixity.

34-) The particulars that have been alleged, are fufficient to affure us, that St. Mark is not an epitomifer of another author: and that he was well acquainted with the things, of which he undertook to write a hiftorie. He writes as an eye-witneffe, or as one, who had full and authentic information at the firft hand. In a word, St. Mark's Gospel, though fhort, is a very valuable, and mafterly performance.

4. It may be proper for me to add one thing more: That I suppose the twelve verfes at the end of the fixteenth chapter to be a genuine part of this Gofpel. If any doubt of it, I would refer them for their fatiffaction to Dr. Mill, and to the obfervations of Grotius at the begining of that chapter, and to Beza upon the ninth verfe. And for explaining those twelve verfes, and reconciling them with the other Evangelifts, I refer to Grotius and other Commentators.

3

I. His Hiftorie from the N. T. II. Teftimonies of ancient Chriftian Writers to St. Luke and his two Books, his Gofpel, and the Acts. III. Remarks upon thofe Teftimonies. IV. The Time of writing his Gospel and the Acts. V. Internal Characters of Time in the Gospel. V The Place where it was writ. VII. A general recollection of St. Luke's Character: VIII. Obfervations, upon his Gospel. IX. Obfervations upon the Book of

the Acts.

His biforie

from the N. T.

·I.

THE

HE firft time that we find any mention of St. Luke in the books of the New Testament is in his (A) own niftorie. Acts xvi. 10. 11. Whereby it appears, that he was in Paul's companie at Troas, before the Apostle

took

(A) From fome words in the Cambridge manufcript Bp. Pearfon has argued, that Luke was in Paul's companie from the year 43. Dein peragrat [Paulus] Phrygiam et Galatiam, et per Myfiam venit Troadem, ubi fe illi comitem adjunxiffe indicat Lucas xvi. 10. Qui antea etiam Antiochiæ cum Paulo

fuit,

took fhipping to go into Macedonia: in which voyage St. Luke was one of the companie. ver. 8. And they paffing by Myfia, came to Treas. 9. And a vifion appeared to Paul in the night. There stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed him, faying: Come over into Macedonia, and help 10. And when he had feen the vifion, immediately we endeavored to go into Macedonia, affuredly gathering, that the Lord had called us to preach the gospel to them. 11. Therefore loofing from Troas, we came with a ftrait courfe to Samothracia.

15.

In that journey St. Paul went from Samothracia to Neapolis, and thence to Philippi. 11... 17. So far St. Luke speaks in the firft perfon plural. But having finished his account of the tranfactions at Philippi, which reaches to ver. 40. the laft of that chapter: at the begining of the next ch. xvii. 1. he (B) changeth the perfor, and fays: Now where they had passed through Amphipolis, and Apollonia, the same to Theffalonica, where was a fynagogue of the Jews.

Nor does he any more exprefsly fpeak of himself, untill Paul was a fecond time in Greece, and was fetting out for Jerufalem with the collections, which had been made for the poor faints in Judea, Acts xx. I... 6. And after the uproar [at Ephefus] was ceafed, Paul called unto him the difciples, and embraced them, and departed for to go into Macedonia. And when he had gone over those parts, and had given them much exhortation, be came into Greece, and there abode three months. And when the Jews laid wait for him, as he was about to fail into Syria, he purposed to return through

Mace

fuit, et jam eum Troade affecutus eft: ut colligere licet ex Act. xi. 28. ubi Codex Cantabr. habet, cuvespaμμ dep. Ab anno igitur 43. per octennium difcipulus fuerat Antiochiæ. Annal. Paulin. p. 10. But it is not fafe to relye upon one manufcript only, different from all others, and of no great authority. As Mr. Tillemont took notice of this obfervation of Pearfon, I tranfcribe his thoughts about it. Selon le manufcrit de Cambrige S. Luc dit qu'il eftoit avec S. Paul à Antioche, des l'an 43. ce que Pearfon a receu. Mais il ne feroit pas feur de fier à un manufcrit different de tous les autres. Et quand cela fe pourroit en quelques occafions, ce ne feroit pas à l'égard du manufcrit de Cambrige, qui eft plein d'additions et alterations contraires au veritable texte de S. Luc. Mem. Ec. T. 2. S. Luc. note iii. Some may arque from these words, that Luke was a Gentil, converted by Paul at Antioch. And others might argue, that he is the fame as Lucius, mentioned Acts xiii. I. But I fhould think it beft for neither fide to form an argument from this reading. Mr. Wetstein has referred us to a place of St. Auguflin, where this text is quoted very agreeably to the Cambridge manufcript. In illis autem diebus defcenderunt ab Jerofolymis Prophetæ Antiochiam. Congregatis autem nobis, furgens unus ex illis, nomine Agabus. &c. De Serm. Dom. I. 2. c. 17. But it is obfervable, that Irenaeus, l. 3. c. 14. init. a more ancient writer, enumerating St, Luke's journeys in St. Paul's companie, begins at Troas. Acts xvi. 8... 10. I prefume, it must be best to relye upon him, and the general confent of all manufcripts, except one, in the common rading.

(B) Nevertheless it is fuppofed by many, that Luke continued with Paul. Irenaeus calls him Paul's infeparable companion, after his coming to be with the Apoftle at Troas. Adv. H. l. 3. c. 14. So likewife Cave, Cujus perinde fectator erat, et omnis peregrinationis comes. H. L. T.i. p. 25. See alfo

Tillem. St. Luc. Mem. Ec. T. 2.

Macedonia. And there accompanied him into Afia Sopator, of Berea... Thefe going before, tarried for us at Troas. And we failed away from Philippi... and came unto them at Troas in five days, where we abode feven 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 fequel of the historie in the Acts, that Luke was one of those, who accompanied the Apostle to Jerufalem, and ftaid with him there. And when the Apoftle was fent a prifoner from Cefarea to Rome, he was in the fame fhip with him, and staid with him at Rome during the whole time of his two years imprisonment there, with which the hiftorie of the Acts, concludes.

From St. Paul epiftles writ at Rome, in the time of that confinement, we have proofs of Luke's being with him. He is mentioned as Iwith the Apostle. 2 Tim. iv. 11. an epiftle writ, as I fuppofe, in the fummer, after the Apostle's arrival there. In Philem. ver. 24. he is one of those who sent falutations to Philemon, and is mentioned by the Apoftle, as one of his fellow-laborers. And, if Luke the beloved Physician, mentioned Col. iv. 14. be the Evangelift, that is another proof of his being then with the Apostle.

St. Luke is alfo fuppofed by fome to be the brother, whose praife 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 epiftles, which we have, were writ, before he left Rome and Italie, when he had been fent thither by Feftus ; I must be of opinion, that the New Teftament affords us not any materials for the hiftorie of St. Luke, lower than his own book of the Acts, which brings us down to the end of that period. From anci II. I now therefore proceed without farther delay, to obent authors. ferve what light may be obtained from ancient Chriftian writers. And as St. Luke's two books, his Gospel and the Acts, were all along univerfally received; I intend here, for avoiding prolixity, to allege, chiefly, fuch paffages only, as contain fomething relating to the hiftorie and character of St. Luke, or the time of writing his two abovenamed works.

Irenæus, as before quoted: " And (a) Luke, the companion of Paul, "put down in a book the Gofpel preached by him." And the coherence feems to imply, that this was done after the writing of St. Mark's Gofpel, and after the death of Peter and Paul. In a paffage formerly cited (6) at length, Irenæus fhews from the Acts, as we did just now, that Luke attended Paul in feveral of his journeys and voyages, and was his fellow-laborer in the gospel. He likewife fays: " that (c) Luke was not only a companion, but alfo a fellow-laborer of the "Apoftles, especially of Paul." Again, he calls him “a (d) disciple and "follower of the Apoftles." "The (e) Apofties, he fays, envying none "plainly

(a) Vol. i. p. 354.

...

(c) P. 363.

(b) P. 361 363.
(d) P. 361.

(e) Sic Apoftoli fimpliciter nemini invidentes que didicerant ipfi a Domino hæc omnibus tradebant. Sic igitur et Lucas nemini invidens, ea quæ

4

ab

"plainly delivered to all the things which they had learned from the "Lord. So likewife Luke, envying no man, has delivered to us what "he learned from them, as he fays: Even as they delivered them unto "us, who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and minifters of the word." By all which it feems, that Irenæus reckoned Luke to have been a difciple of the Apostles, not a hearer of Jefus Chrift himself.

Clement of Alexandria has bore a large teftimonie to this Gospel, and the Acts, as well as to the other books of the New Teftament. And as we learn from Eufebe, "in (f) his Inftitutions, he mentions a tradi"tion concerning the order of the Gofpels, which he had received from "Prefbyters of more ancient times, and which is to this purpose. He "fays, that the Gofpels containing the genealogies were writ firft :" According to that tradition therefore St. Matthew's and St. Luke's Gofpels were writ before St. Mark's. Which, according to the fame Clement, and the tradition received by him, was writ at Rome, at the request of St. Peter's hearers, or the Chriftians in that city.

Tertullian (g) fpeaks of Matthew and John, as difciples of Christ, of Mark and Luke, as difciples of Apoftles. Therefore, I think, he did not reckon these to have been of the feventy, or hearers of Chrift. However, he afcribes a like authority to thefe, and fays: " that (b) the Gof"pel, which Mark published, may be faid to be Peter's, whofe inter"preter Mark was. For Luke's Digeft alfo is often afcribed to Paul. "And indeed it is eafie to take that for the mafters, which the disciples published." Again: "moreover (i) Luke was not an Apoftle, but apoftolical: not a master, but a difciple: certainly less than his master, "but a difciple: certainly lefs than his mafter, certainly fo much later, "as he is a follower of Paul, the laft of the Apoftles." This likewife hews Tertullian's notion of St. Luke's character.

"

Origen mentions the Gospels in the order now generally received. "The (k) third, fays he, is that according to Luke, the Gofpel com"mended by Paul, published for the fake of the Gentil converts." Ja his Commentarie upon the epiftle to the Romans, which we now have in a Latin verfion only, he fays, upon ch. xvi. 21. "Some (1) fay, Lu"cius is Lucas the Evangelift, as indeed it is not uncommon to write 'names fometimes according to the original form, fometimes according "to the Greek or Roman termination." Lucius, mentioned in that text of the epiftle to the Romans, muft have been a Jew. Nevertheless, as Origen affures us, fome thought him to be Luke the Evangelift. The fame obfervation we faw in (m) Sedulius, who wrote a Commentarie upon St. Paul's epiftles, collected out of Origen, and others.

Eufebius ab eis didicerat, tradidit nobis, ficut ipfe teftatur dicens: Quemadmodum tradiderunt nobis qui ab initio contemplatores et miniftri fucrunt verbi. Av. H. l. 3. cap. 14. n. 2.

(ƒ) Vol. ii. p. 475.

(b) P. 581.

(g) Vol. ii. p. 587. 588.

() P. 587.

() Vol. ii. p. 235. Sed et Lucium quidam perhibent effe Lucam Evangeliftam, qui Evangelium fcripfit, pro eo quod foleant nomina interdum fecundum patriam deelinationem, interdum Græcain Romanamque proferri. In Rom. T. 2. p. 632. Bafil. 1571.

(i) Vol. xi. p. 182.

VOL. II.

F

Eufebius of Cefarea, as tranfcribed formerly, fpeaking of St. Paul's fellow-laborers, fays: "And (n) Luke, who was of Antioch, and by pro"feffion a Phyfician, for the most part a companion of Paul, who had "likewife more than a flight acquaintance with the reft of the Apostles, "has left us in two books, divinely inspired, evidences of the art of hea"ling fouls, which he had learned from them. One of these is the Gofpel, which he profeffeth to have writ, as they delivered it to him, who "from the beginning were eye-witnesses and minifters of the word: with all whom, he fays likewife, he had been perfectly acquainted from the very "first. The other is the Acts of the Apostles, which he compofed now, "not from what he had received by the report of others, but from what "he had feen with his own eyes.”

And in another place, cited () alfo formerly, he obferves, “ that (4) "Luke had delivered in his Gofpel a certain account of fuch things, as "he had been well affured of by his intimate acquaintance and familia"rity with Paul, and his converfation with the other Apoftles."

From all which, I think, it appears, that Eusebe did not take Luke for a difciple of Chrift, but of Apoftles only.

In the Synopfis afcribed to Athanafius it is faid, " that (q) the Gofpel "of Luke was dictated by the Apostle Paul, and writ and published by "the bleffed Apostle and Physician Luke.”

The author of the Dialogue against the Marcionites fays, "that (r) Mark and Luke were difciples of Chrift, and of the number of the Seventy."

Epiphanius (s) fpeaks to the like purpose.

Gregorie Nazianzen fays, " that (1) Luke wrote for the Greeks," or in Achaia.

Gregorie Nyffen says, "that (u) Luke was as much a Phyfician for the "foul, as for the body:" taking him to be the fame, that is mentioned Col. iv. 14.

In the catalogue of Ebedjefu it is faid, “ that (x) Luke taught and "wrote at Alexandria, in the Greek language."

The Author of the Commentarie upon St. Paul's thirteen epiftles seems to have doubted, whether (y) the Evangelift Luke be the perfon intended Cal. iv. 14.

66

Jerome agrees very much with Eufebe, already tranfcribed. Nevertheless I fhall put down here fomewhat largely what he fays. "Luke (z) a Physician of Antioch, not unfkilfull in the Greek language, a difciple "of the Apostle Paul, and the conftant companion of his travels, wrote "a Gospel,and another excellent volume, entitled the Acts of the "Apoftles..... It is fuppofed, that Luke did not learn his Gofpel from "the Apostle Paul only, who had not converfed with the Lord in the "ffh, but alfo from other Apoftles. Which likewife he owns at the "begining

() Vol. viii. p. 103. 104.

()... Τὸν ἀσφαλῆ λόγον ὧν αὐτὸς ἅμα παύλῳ συνουσίας τε καὶ διατριβῆς, καὶ λημένος, διὰ τὸ ἰδιο παρίδωκεν ἐυαγγελίω. (q) Vol. viii. p. 250. () Vol. ix. p. 133. (y) Vol. ix. p. 367. 368.

(0) P.95.

ἱκανῶς τὴν ἀλήθειαν κατειλήφει, ἐκ τῆς τῆς τῶν λοιπῶν ἀποτόλων ὁμιλίας έφεση Η. Ε. Ι. 3. c. 24. p. 96. c. (r) P. 255. (u) P. 156.

(s) P. 306.
(x) P. 217.

(x) Vol. x. p.94...96.