X

tenth century, in his life of St. Luke, is their authority: for he is the writer quoted by Grabe, though he does it cautiously, Nor does Metaphrastes say, that St. Luke published his gospel in Egypt: he supposeth it to have been written before he went thither. For he says, that when Luke preached there, he sometimes argued from the Old Testament, and sometimes from the gospel which he had written. It may be reckoned probable, therefore, that this journey of St. Luke into Egypt is a mere fiction, a thing without ground ascribed to him by some, after he had left Paul, and after he had written his gospel.

Nevertheless those learned men have been pleased to argue from this passage of Metaphrastes, that Jerom mistook Thebes in Boeotia for Thebes in Egypt: which appears to me to be altogether arbitrary. I should rather think, that some later writer mistook the place, and instead of Thebes in Boeotia, thought of Thebes in Egypt, a very famous city, and better known to himself than the other.

may

It be of use to take here more at large the passage of Nicephorus, in part quoted just now.

Luke," says he, was born at Antioch, which is in Syria, by profession a physician, and also well skilled in painting. He came to Paul at Thebes with its seven gates: where, renouncing 'the error of his ancestors, he embraced the christian doc'trine, and of a physician for the body, became a physician 'for the soul. He likewise wrote a gospel, as Paul dictated it to him, and also the Acts of the Apostles. Whilst Paul was at Rome, [or, when Paul had been at Rome,] 'he returned into Greece.' This, I think, must confirm our supposition, that somebody mistook Thebes in Egypt'

* Taceo recentiores, veluti Simeonem Metaphrasten, qui in Vitâ S. Lucæ Græce et Latine editâ ad calcem commentariorum Ecumenii, p. 857, D. ita scribit: totam Libyam percurrens in Ægyptum pervenit, &c. ̄ Grabe, Spic. T. I. p. 33. - Και νυν μεν απο της παλαιας παραγων γραφης, νυν δε αφ' επερ ετος ανεταξατο ευαγγελια διερμηνεύων αυτοις τα περι Xpise. Sim. Metaphr. de Vit. S. Lucæ, p. 858. B.

Neque aliunde in aliam sententiam ductum arbitror Hieronymum, qui in Achaia Bootiæque finibus hoc evangelium conditum ait, quam quod, seu lecto, seu ex traditione alicubi accepto, Lucam apud Thebanos prædicâsse, ac conscripsisse evangelium, incolas istos fuisse existimârit Thebarum Bootiarum, non autem Thebarum, urbis Ægypti superioris. Mill. Prol. n. 115. • Vid. et Wetsten. citat. supra note ".

d

Niceph. 1. 2. cap. 43. p. 210. A. B.

b All must be sensible that this story of Nicephorus is very strange. For in one place he without hesitation speaks of St. Luke as the companion of Cleophas, mentioned, Luke xxiv. 18, lib. I. cap. 34, p. 117. A. And he several times speaks of Mark and Luke as two of Christ's seventy disciples. Lib. II. cap. 43. in. et cap. 45. p. 213. B. kαι ek twy i ovo iтepes, MapкOV

και Λεκαν.

for Thebes in Boeotia. It is plain, that Nicephorus means Thebes of Greece. And he seems to have supposed in this place, that Luke was converted about the time that he came to be with Paul in Macedonia and Greece. See Acts xvi. 10. He says, Luke returned into Greece. Therefore the Thebes before mentioned must have been in that country: nor was Paul ever at Thebes in Egypt. Luke therefore could not meet him, and be converted by him there. He calls it Thebes with its seven gates: so Thebes in Boeotia was sometimes called.

с

Secondly. Another argument, that St. Luke's gospel was written at Alexandria, is, that it is so said in the Syriac version.

But those titles are of no great weight. Before the three catholic epistles, received by the Syrians, is a title or inscription, importing, that they were written by the apostles, James, Peter, and John, witnesses of our Saviour's transfiguration, taking James to be the son of Zebedee : whereas the epistle of James could not be written till long after his death, who was beheaded by Herod Agrippa, as related, Acts xii. 1, 2. And St. Paul's second epistle to Timothy is said by the same Syrians to have been written at Rome, and sent by Luke: which is manifestly contrary to the epistle itself. See 2 Tim. iv. 11, 12,

St. Luke's gospel is also said in the Persic version 5 to have been written at Alexandria. But then it is allowed, that this version was made from the Syriac, not from the Greek.

Thirdly. It is also argued, that there are epigraphai or inscriptions in some manuscripts, at the end of this gospel, where it is said, that it was written in the great city of Alexandria.

But it is well known, that those inscriptions at the end of the books of the New Testament are of little value, divers of them containing manifest mistakes: and they are in

• Vid. Cellar. Geogr. Antiq. lib. II. cap. 13.

Ita quippe sonat titulus ejus in versione Syriacâ, ante mille annos editâ: Evangelium Lucæ evangelista quod protulit et evangelizavit Græce in Alexandria magna. Grabe, Spic. T. I. p. 33. Conf. Mill. Prol. n. 114.

• Sanctorum apostolorum, Jacobi, Petri, Joannis, transfigurationis Christi spectatorum, epistolæ singulæ.

f Ad Timotheum vero secunda, Romæ scripta, fuit missa per eundem Lucam medicum et evangelistam. Ebedjesu, Catal. ap. Asseman. Bib. Or. T. III. p. 12. Et in versione Persicâ, quam tamen non ex Græco, sed Syriaco textu translatam existimat admodum R. Waltonus: Evangelium Lucæ, quod linguâ Græcâ Ægyptiacâ in Alexandriâ scripsit. Grab. ubi supr. p. 33.

late manuscripts only, or however, such as are not of the highest antiquity.

Fourthly. Grabe likewise insists upon a passage in the Apostolical Constitutions, where the apostles are brought in, relating what bishops had been appointed by them in their own time. And it is said, that in Alexandria, Anianus, the first bishop, was ordained by the evangelist Mark, and Abilius by Luke, also evangelist. And Mill in like manner quotes the Constitutions, after Grabe, though almost ashamed so to do.

But it should be considered, that the author of that work is anonymous, and unknown, and his time not certain. He says what he pleaseth, and has been convicted of falsehood in such accounts as these, as well as in others. k It has very much the appearance of fiction, that the first bishop of Alexandria should be ordained by Mark, and the second by Luke and possibly it is a fiction of the writer himself; for I do not recollect, that this is said any where else. Epiphanius, as well as more ancient writers, must have been totally unacquainted with this ordination, and with St. Luke's journies in Egypt: for he says, that this evangelist preached the gospel in Dalmatia, Gaul, Italy, and Macedonia, but especially in Gaul.

m

Du Pin having taken notice of what is said relating to this matter in the inscriptions, which are in some manuscripts, the titles in the Syriac and Persic versions, Metaphrastes, and the Constitutions, concludes: All these 'monuments deserve no credit. We ought to adhere to what is said by Jerom, as most probable: that this gospel was composed in Achaia, or Boeotia.'

Upon the whole, there appears not any good reason to say, that St. Luke wrote his gospel 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 composed, or finished, and published his gospel, and the Acts of the Apostles.

VII. I would now offer something by way of character

Atque hoc non parum confirmatur ex eo quod, lib. vii. Const. Apost. Clement. cap. 46. Lucas dicatur Alexandriæ fuisse, ibique episcopum Avilium ordinâsse. Urbis Alexandrinorum Anianus primus a Marco evangelistâ ordinatus est, secundus vero Avilius a Lucâ, et ipso evangelista.' Grabe, ibid. Et si Constitutionum Apostolicarum seu auctori seu consarcinatori fides, in ecclesiâ Alexandrinâ a Marco primum fundatâ― Avilium Aniani primi episcopi successorem, ordinaverit. Mill. Prol. n. 141. See in this work, Vol. iv. p. 208, 209.

1 Hær. L. I. num. xi. p. 433.

m Disserta. sur la Bible, liv. 2. ch. 2. sect. v. p. 39.

of this evangelist: but I shall do it briefly and cautiously; and if I mention doubtful things doubtfully, I may hope to escape censure. It is probable, that he is Lucius, mentioned, Rom. xvi. 21. If so, he was related to St. Paul the apostle. And it is not unlikely, that that Lucius is the same 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 requisite qualification for writing a history of Christ and the early preaching of his apostles to advantage; which, certainly, St. Luke has performed. I do not perceive sufficient reason to believe, that Luke was one of Christ's seventy disciples. But he may have been one of the two, whom our Lord met in the way to Emmaus, on the day of his resurrection, as related, Luke xxiv. 13-35. He is expressly styled by the apostle "his fellow-labourer," Philem. ver. 24. If he be the person intended, Col. iv. 14, (which seems very probable,) he was, or had been by profession a physician. And he was greatly valued by the apostle, who calls him beloved: which must be reckoned much to his honour. For nothing could be so likely to recommend any man to St. Paul's esteem, as faithfulness to the interests of pure religion. It is undoubted, that he accompanied Paul when he first went into Macedonia, Acts xvi. 8-40. And though we are not fully assured, that he continued to be with him constantly afterwards, we know that he went with the apostle from Greece through Macedonia, and Asia, to Jerusalem, 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 disposed, than one of the first preachers of the gospel to the Gentiles. We do not exactly know when St. Luke formed the design of writing his two books; but, probably, they are the labour of several 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 completing his collections, and filling up his plan. For in that time unquestionably Luke conversed with many early Jewish believers, and eye-witnesses of the Lord, and some of the apostles, who were still at Jerusalem. And I make no doubt, but that before that season he had conversed with several of the apostles, and other eye-witnesses of our Lord's person and works. Nor can any hesitate to allow the truth

of what is said by some of the ancients, that Luke, who for the most part was a companion of Paul, had likewise more than a slight acquaintance with the rest of the apostles. Whilst he was with Paul at Rome, it is likely, that he had some leisure for composing 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 inscribed to Theophilus, an honourable friend, and a good christian in that country. Here Luke died, and perhaps somewhat in years. Nor need it to be reckoned an improbable supposition, that he was older than the apostle.

:

VIII. I shall conclude this chapter with some observations upon St. Luke's gospel, and the Acts of the Apostles. But those upon his gospel will chiefly relate to the introduction though some were mentioned formerly.

1. St. Luke's two books, his gospel and the Acts, are inscribed to Theophilus: whereby some understand any good christian in general, others a particular person.

Epiphanius" speaks as if he was in doubt, whether thereby should be understood a particular person, or a lover of God in general. Salvian seems to have supposed it to be only a feigned name.

Augustin P and Chrysostom, and many others, have thereby understood a real person. Theophylact expresseth himself after this manner: Theophilus, to whom Luke 'wrote, was a man of senatorian rank, and possibly a governor forasmuch as he calls him most excellent, the " same title which Paul useth in his addresses to Felix and 'Festus.' Ecumenius Ecumenius says, that Theophilus was a pre'fect or governor.' However, we have no particular account in the ancients, who he was, or of what country.

t

Cave supposed Theophilus to have been a nobleman of Antioch. And in his Lives of the Apostles and Evangelists," written in English, he refers to the Recognitions:

* Ειτ' εν τινα Θεοφιλῳ τοτε γραφων τωτο ελεγεν, η παντι ανθρωπῳ θεον ауаπvτI. Epiph. Hær. LI. n. vii. p. 429. A.

Positus itaque in hoc ambiguæ opinionis incerto, optimum fere credidit, ut beati evangelista sacratissimum sequeretur exemplum: qui in utroque divini operis exordio Theophili nomen inscribens, cum ad hominem scripsisse videatur, ad amorem Dei scripsit; hoc scilicet dignissimum esse judicans, u ad ipsum affectum Dei scripta dirigeret, a quo ad scribendum impulsus esset. Salvian. ad Salon. ep. 9. p. 215.

P De Consens. Evan. 1. 4. c. 8. T. III.

T. IX. p. 3, 4.

Chrys. in Act. Hom. i. See this Vol. p. 160.

Hyεμm ovтog u Otopiλog, &c. Comm. in Act. T. II. p. 2. C. Utrumque opus inscripsit Theophilo optimati (ut credere fas est) Antiocheno. Hist. Lit. in Lucâ.

" P. 224.