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.

6

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 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.

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 τετο ελεγεν, η παντι ανθρωπῳ Θεον ayаrovri. Epiph. Hær. LI. n. vii. p. 429. A.

Positus itaque in hoc ambigua 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, ut ad ipsum affectum Dei scripta dirigeret, a quo ad scribendum impulsus esset. Salvian. ad Salon. ep. 9. p. 215.

P De Consens. Evan. I. 4. c. 8. T. III. T. IX. p. 3, 4.

S

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

Hyeμwv nv ovтoc o copilos, &c. Comm. in Act. T. II. p. 2. C. Utrumque opus inscripsit Theophilo optimati (ut credere fas est) Antiocheno. Hist. Lit. in Lucâ. u P. 224.

in V

where is mentioned a rich man of Antioch of this name. But I do not esteem that to be any proof that St. Luke's Theophilus was of Antioch. That fabulous writer is not speaking of Paul, nor of Luke, but of Peter: who, as he says, seven days converted ten thousand people at Antioch. And Theophilus, the greatest man in the city, turned his house into a church. Moreover, supposing him to intend St. Luke's Theophilus, his authority is of no value. A writer at the end of the second century does not speak of his own knowledge. And if St. Luke published his books in Greece, which to me seems probable, I should be inclined to think, that Theophilus, to whom they are addressed, was a man of the same country.

X

W

2. It may be of more importance to inquire, whom St. Luke means by the many, who before him had attempted to write histories of Jesus Christ. Epiphanius says, that " St. Luke intended Cerinthus, Merinthus, and others. How Origen expressed himself concerning this, in his preface to St. Luke's gospel; and how Jerom in his preface to St. Matthew, may be seen by those, who are pleased to look back. They say, that many attempted to write gospels, as Basilides, Apelles, and others. And they mention divers gospels, not received by the church: such as the gospel of Thomas, and Matthias, the gospel of the Egyptians, and of the twelve. But it is not necessary to be supposed by us, that they thought that all, if any of those gospels were written before St. Luke's, or that he spoke of them; for Basilides and Apelles could not write gospels before the second century and they might suppose, that several, if not all the others, mentioned by thein, were written after St. Luke's. The meaning of what these ancient writers say, is, that the church receives four gospels only. There were many others. But to them may be applied the words of St. Luke: they only took in hand, or attempted. They did not perform as Matthew, and Mark, and Luke, and John did. And they might express themselves in that manner concerning gospels written after St. Luke's, as well as before it.

▾ Et ne multis immorer, intra septem dies, plus quam decem millia hominum credentes Deo baptizati sunt, et sanctificatione consecrati; ita ut omni aviditatis desiderio Theophilus, qui erat cunctis potentibus in civitate sublimior, domûs suæ ingentem basilicam, ecclesiæ nomine, consecravit. cogn. 1. x. cap. 71.

W

Re

—φασκων επειδηπερ πολλοί επεχειρησαν ἵνα τινας μεν επιχειρητας δείξη, φημι δε τες περι Κήρινθον, και Μηρινθον, και τις αλλες. Η. LI. n. vii. in. * See Vol. ii. p. 533, 534.

See Vol. iv. ch. cxiv. num. ix. 8.

However, Theophylact, as was formerly observed, in the preface to his Commentary upon St. Luke, expresseth himself as if he thought the evangelist referred to the gospels according to the Egyptians, and according to the twelve.

a

3. We will now observe the judgments of some learned moderns. Grabe allows, that St. Luke did not refer to the gospels of Basilides, or Thomas, or some others, mentioned by Origen, for they were not published till after St. Luke's death. But he thinks, that St. Luke might refer to the gospels according to the Egyptians, and according to the twelve, and some others not known.

That St. Luke might refer to the gospel according to the Egyptians, he thinks for the following reasons, which I shall consider.

b

The first is, that St. Luke's gospel was written in Egypt. To which I answer, that is said without ground, as has been lately shown.

с

e

Grabe's second argument is, that Clement of Rome, or some other, in the fragment of the second epistle ascribed to him, has quoted the gospel according to the Egyptians. Which argument, as one would think, might have been spared since Grabe himself allows that second epistle to be supposititious, and not to have been composed till about the middle of the third century. If that be the true date of the epistle, it is too late a thing to warrant the supposition, that St. Luke referred to the gospel according to the Egyptians.

a

I shall take no farther notice of Grabe. But I imagine that the gospel according to the Egyptians was not composed before the second century. Clement of Alexandria This Vol. p. 159. Reliqua quippe, ab Origene et Ambrosio nominata falsa evangelia, veluti Basilidis, aliudque Manichæorum, apostolo Thomæ perperam adscriptum, procul omni dubio post S. Lucæ obitum prodiere; adeo ut ea in primis evangelii verbis, in quorum explicatione Origenes et Ambrosius ista afferunt, respicere haud potuerit. Contra vero haud est absimile, ista secundum Hebræos et Ægyptios ante fuisse scripta, atque ad ea unâ cum aliis pluribus jam ignotis, Lucam intendisse digitum, dum præfatus est, &c. Gr. Spic. T. I. p. 31, 32.

b

Evangelium, de quo agitur, ab Ægyptiis editum fuisse ante Lucæ evangelium, huncque istud inter alia, si non præcipue, respexisse, dum in proœmio plures historias evangelicas memorat, ad quas emendandas, et defectus eorum supplendos suam literis consignasse se innuit, probabile redditur ex eo, quod Lucas evangelium scripsisse dicatur Alexandriæ in Ægypto. Id. ib. p. 33. in. See before, p. 380. d Accedit, quod jam Clemens Romanus, vel quisquis est auctor ep. 2. ad Corinthios, certe antiquissimus, isto evangelio usus esse ex fragmento mox recitando, colligatur. Ibid. p. 34. • Cæterum quæras, quando epistola illa Clementi supposita fuerat, respondeo, id seculo iii. et quidem medio, factum esse. Ib. p. 299. in.

is the first known catholic author that has cited it; and in his time it was very obscure and little known. This was shown formerly.

Dr. Mill does not much differ from Grabe. He thinks, that of the many narrations, to which St. Luke refers, the two principal were the gospels according to the Hebrews, and according to the Egyptians.

The general account which Mill gives of those memoirs or narrations, seems to be very just and reasonable; and I intend to transcribe him here largely: About the year 58, or somewhat sooner,' says Mill, were composed by some of the faithful evangelical narrations, or short histories of Christ. This appears from St. Luke's introduction to his 'gospel. From which we learn, in the first place, that they were not our evangelists, Matthew and Mark: for Matthew was an eye-witness; nor can two be called many. In the next place it is to be observed, that these narrations 'consisted of things most surely believed among us, that is, 'as I understand it, of the things fulfilled and done by Christ among the first professors of the faith; of which ' number Luke reckons himself. Lastly, from the words of See Vol. ii. p. 251.

Ex dictis autem hisce historiolis-duæ præ cæteris celebratæ erant quæ et ipsæ evangelia appellabantur, secundum Hebræos alterum, alterum secundum Egyptios. Proleg. n. 38. vid. et n. 39-41. et n. 112, &c.

Sub hoc quidem tempus, annum dico LVIII. seu etiam aliquanto ante, contextæ fuere a fidelibus quibusdam istius ævi dınynoɛç evangelicæ, seu historiolæ de rebus Christi. Patet hoc ex evangelii D. Lucæ proœmio:Exinde colligimus, in primis equidem, о hosce, qui historias conficiebant, alios prorsus fuisse ab evangelistis nostris, Matthæo et Marco. Erat enim Matthæus unus ex avtoñтa, ideoque nec ab istorum traditionibus pendebat, sicut hi quos memorat Lucas. Ne dicam, quod duos duntaxat nemo es dixerat. Deinde veto notandum, eos narrationes suas instituisse TEρ TWV πεπληροφορημένων εν ἡμῖν πραγματων, hoc est, ut ego lubens interpretor, & de rebus apud primos fidei professores, quorum numero seipsum accenset Lucas, a Christo impletis sive gestis.' Denique liquet ex verbis modo citatis, traductas fuisse narratiunculas istas seu proxime, seu mediate saltem, ab apostolis ipsis, eorumque in opere evangelico adjutoribus. Manifestum est igitur, fuisse e primis christianis nonnullos, qui ante Lucam, [addo etiam Matthæum et Marcum,] res Christi, (seu evangelia,) ex apostolicis traditionibus undecunque acceptas conscripserant; idque non studio aliquo maligno, seu hæretico, quod insinuant fere qui in hoc Lucæ procemium commentati sunt: sed eodem plane fine, quo evangelistæ nostri; ut haberet scilicet ecclesia rerum a Domino nostro gestarum qualem notitiam. Cæterum cum in iis quæ sequuntur apud Lucam, singula christianæ rei historiam spectantia accurate se assecutum esse dicat evangelista-haud obscure quidem hinc colligi videtur, rwv rodλWY istorum denyno minus accuratas fuisse, minusque perfectas; ita quidem, ut in his, quæ tradiderant, aliqua hinc inde occurrerint parum certa, ne dicam a vero aberrantia. Unde omnino visum sit ipsi, plenariam historiæ hujusce cognitionem consecuto, integrum jam et luculentum rerum a Christo gestarum commentarium scribere. Mill. Proleg. num. 35-37.

VOL. V.

Proleg

2

C