34.) The particulars that have been alleged, are sufficient 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 hiftory. He writes as an eye-witnefs, 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 fuppofe 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 fatisfaction to Dr. Mill, and to the obfervations of Grotius at the beginning 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.

CHA P. VIII.

ST. LUKE, EVANGELIST.

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

I. THE first time that we find any mention of St. Luke in the books of the New Teftament is in his own hiftory. Acts xvi.

a From fome words in the Cambridge manufcript Bp. Pearfon has argued, that Luke was in Paul's company from the year 43. Dein peragrat [Paulus] Phrygiam et Galatian, et per Myfiam venit Troadem, ubi fe illi comitem adjunxiffe indicat Lucas xvi 10. Qui antea etiam Antiochiæ cum Paulo fuit, et jam eum Troade affecutus eft: ut colligere licet ex Act. xi. 28. ubi Codex Cantabr. habet, ouves pauμενων δε ημων. Ab anno igitur 43.

per octennium difcipulus fuerat Antiochiæ. Annal. Paulin. p. 10. But it is not fafe to rely 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 Cambridge 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

Acts xvi. 10, 11. Whereby it appears, that he was in Paul's company at Troas, before the apoftle took fhipping to go into Macedonia: in which voyage St. Luke was one of the company. ver. 8. And they paffing by Myfia, came to Troas. Ver. 9. And a vifion appeared to Paul in the night: There food a man of Macedonia, and prayed him, faying, come over into Macedonia, and help us. ver. 10. And when he had feen the vifion, immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, affuredly gathering, that the Lord had called us to preach the gospel to them. ver. 11. Therefore loofing from Troas, we came with a straight courfe to Samothracia.

In that journey St. Paul went from Samothracia to Neapolis, and thence to Philippi. 11-17. So far St. Luke fpeaks in the firft perfon plural. But having finifhed his account of the tranfactions at Philippi, which reaches to ver. 40, the laft of that chapter: at the beginning of the next ch. xvii. 1. he changeth the perfon, and fays: Now when they bad paffed through Amphipolis, and Apollonia, they came to Theffalonica, where was a fynagogue of the Jews.

b

Nor does he any more exprefsly fpeak of himself, until 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. 1-6. And after the uproar [at Ephefus,] was ceafed, Paul called unto him the difciples, and

different de tous les autres. Et quand cela fe pourroit en quelques occafions, ce ne feroit pas à l'égard da manufcrit de Cambridge, qui eft plein d'additions et alterations contraires au veritable texte de S. Luc. Mem. Ec. T. 2. S. Luc. note iii. Some may argue from thefe words, that Luke was a Gentile, converted by Paul at Antioch. And others might argue, that he is the fame as Lucius, mentioned Acts xiii. 1. 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. Auguftine, 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. 1. 2. c. 17. But it is obfervable, that Irenæus 1. 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. 1 prefume, it must be best to rely upon him, and the general confent of all manufcripts, except one, in the common reading.

b Nevertheless it is fuppofed by many, that Luke continued with Paul. Irenæus calls him Paul's infeparable companion, after his coming to be with the Apostle at Troas.

Adv. H. 1. 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.

embraced

embraced them, and departed for to go into Macedonia. And when be bad gone over thofe 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 fail into Syria, be purposed to return through Macedonia. And there accompanied him into Afia, Sopater of Berea....These 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 Seven days. So that Luke accompanied Paul, at that time, from Greece through Macedonia to Philippi, and alfo went with him from thence to Troas.

And it appears from the fequel of the hiftory in the Acts, that Luke was one of thofe, who accompanied the apostle to Jerufalem, and ftayed with him there. And when the apostle was fent a prifoner from Cæfarea to Rome, he was in the fame fhip with him, and stayed with him at Rome during the whole time of his two years imprisonment there, with which the hiftory of the Acts concludes.

From St. Paul's epiftles written at Rome, in the time of that confinement, we have proofs of Luke's being with him. He is mentioned as with the apoftle. 2 Tim. iv. 11. an epiftle written, as I fuppofe, in the fummer, after the apoftle's arrival there. In Philem. ver. 24. he is one of thofe, who fend falutations to Philemon, and is mentioned by the apoftle, as one of his fellow-labourers. And, if Luke the beloved phyfician, 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, whofe 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 written, before he left Rome and Italy, when he had been fent thither by Feftus; I must be of opinion, that the New Teftament 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 obferve what light may be obtained from ancient Chriftian writers. And as St. Luke's two books, his gofpel 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 hiftory and character of St. Luke, or the time of writing his two above-named works. Irenæus,

2

Irenæus, as before quoted: And Luke, the companion of Paul, put down in a book the gospel 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 at length, Irenæus fhows from the Acts, as we did juft now, that Luke attended Paul in feveral of his journies and voyages, and was his fellow-labourer in the gofpel. He likewife fays: that Luke was not only a companion, but also a fellowlabourer of the apoftles, especially of Paul.' Again, he calls him a difciple and follower of the apoftles.' The apofties, he fays, envying none plainly delivered to all the things which they had learned from the Lord. So likewife Luke, envying no man, has delivered to us what The learned from them, as he fays: Even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eye-witneffes and minifters of the word. By all which it feems, that Irenæus reckoned Luke to have been a difciple of the apoftles, not a hearer of Jefus Chrift himself.

ل

Clement of Alexandria has borne a large teftimony to this gofpel, and the Acts, as well as to the other books of the New Teftament. And as we learn from Eufebius, in his Inftitutions he mentions a tradition concerning the order of the gofpels, which he had received from prefby'ters of more ancient times, and which is to this purpose. 'He fays, that the gofpels containing the genealogies were written firft:' according to that tradition therefore St. Matthew's and St. Luke's gofpels were written before St. Mark's. Which, according to the fame Clement, and the tradition received by him, was written at Rome, at the requeft of Peter's hearers, or the Chriftians in that city.

Tertullian fpeaks of Matthew and John as difciples of Chrift, of Mark and Luke as difciples of apoftles: therefore I think he did not reckon thefe to have been of the feventy, or hearers of Chrift. However, he afcribes a like

h

authority to these, and fays, that the gofpel, 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 easy to take that for the mafter's which the difciples published.' Again: Moreover 'i Luke was not an apostle, but apoftolical; not a 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 fhows Tertullian's notion of St. Luke's character.

Origen mentions the gofpels in the order now generally received. The third, fays he, is that according to Luke, the gofpel commended by Paul, published for the fake of the gentile converts.' In his commentary upon the epiftle to the Romans, which we now have in a Latin verfion only, he says, upon ch. xvi. 21. Some fay Lucius 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, must have been a Jew. Nevertheless, as Origen affures us, fome thought him to be Luke the evangelift. The fame obfervation we faw in Sedulius, who wrote a commentary upon St. Paul's epiftles, collected out of Origen and others.

<

m

Eufebius of Cæfarea, as tranfcribed formerly, speaking of St. Paul's fellow-labourers, fays, And Luke, who was of Antioch, and by profeffion a phyfician, for the most 'part a companion of Paul, who had likewife a more than flight acquaintance with the reft of the apostles, has left us in two books, divinely infpired, evidences of the art of healing fouls, which he had learned from them. One of these is the gofpel which he profeffeth to have written, 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 firft. The other is the Acts of the apoftles, which he compofed now, 'not from what he had received by the report of others, but