not in Ifrael, In Matth. viii. 11. 12. is a farther enlargement. The like to which may be seen in Luke xiii. 28. . . 30.

...

6. In ch. xiii. 6. . 9. is the parable of the fig-tree, fpared one year more: reprefenting the ruin of the Jewish church and people as near, if they did not fpeedily repent.

7. In ch. xi. 48... 51. are predictions of the calamities coming upon the Jewish people. In ch. xiii. 34. 35. are our Lord's lamentations over the city of Jerufalem, in the view of the calamities coming upon it. See likewife xvii. 22. 37. xix. II. 27. xx. 9... 18. xxi. 5. . . . II. and ver. 20. As St. Luke enlargeth fo much in his accounts of these predictions, it may be argued, that the accomplishment was not far off, when he wrote.

..

35.

8. In ch. xiv. 16... 24. is the parable of a great fupper. When they who were first invited, refufed to come. Whereupon the invitations were enlarged, and made more general. And in the end he who made the fupper declares, that they who were first bidden, fhould not taft of it: reprefenting the call of the Gentils, and the general rejection of the Jews for their unbelief.

9. In ch. xiii. 18... 21. are the parables of the grain of mustard-feed, and leaven, representing the wonderful progreffe of the gofpel: of which, probably, St. Luke had been witneffe, when he recorded them.

10. Ch. xxiv. 46. 47. . . And he said unto them. . . that repentance and remiffion of fins fhould be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerufalem. When St. Luke wrote this, it is very likely, that he well understood the commiffion of the Apoftles, as reaching to men of all denominations, throughout the whole world.

11. But I need not enlarge farther on thefe internal characters of time, the other argument being fufficient and fatisfactorie.

The Piace, where VI. I muft fay fomething concerning the place, it was writ. where St. Luke's Gospel was writ.

Jerome, as before (r) quoted, in the prologue to his Commentarie upon St. Matthew, fays, that (s) Luke, the third Evangelift, published his Gospel in the countreys of Achaia and Boeëtia. In his book of Illuftrious Men he fays, the (1) Acts were writ at Rome. Gregorie Nazianzen lays, that (u) Luke wrote for the Greeks, or in Achaia. And speaking of the provinces of divers of the Apoftles and Evangelifts, he (x) affigns Judea to Peter, the Gentils to Paul, Achaia to Luke, Epirus to Andrew, Ephefus or Afia to John, India to Thomas, Italie to Mark: in which countrey, undoubtedly, many of the ancients believed this laft mentioned Evangelift to have writ his Gofpel. Chryfoftom does not fay, where Luke wrote: but only that (y) he wrote for all in general.

We are told by (z) Philoftorge, that in the reign of the Emperour Conftantius St. Luke's reliques were tranflated from Achaia to Conftanti

(r) Vol. x. p. 84. 85.

() In Achaia Bocotiæque partibus volumen condidit. Ibid.

(t) Ib. p. 95.

(u) Vol. ix. p. 133.

nople.

(*) Εγω πίτρε ἡ ἰσδαῖα, τί πάυλῳ κοινὸν πρὸς τὰ ἔθνη, λυκὰ πρὸς ἀχαίαν . . . μαρκῷ πρὸς ιταλίαν; Gregor. Οr. 25. p. 438. Α.

() Vol. x. p. 318.

(≈) Vol. vii. p. 317.

nople. It must therefore have been the general perfuafion in thofe times, that St. Luke had died, and had been buried in Achaia. Nicephorus fays, that (a) when Paul left Rome, Luke returned to Greece, where he preached the gospel, and converted many: where alfo he fuffered martyrdom, and was buried. Soon afterwards he fays, that (b) in the reign of Conftantius Luke's body was tranflated from Thebes to Conftantinople. The connexion leads us by Thebes to understand Thebes in Greece.

Grotius fays, he thinks, that (c) about the time that Paul left Rome, Luke alfo went thence into Achaia, and there wrote his books, which we have, as Jerome likewife fays. Cave thought, that (d) both St. Luke's books were writ at Rome, and before Paul's captivity there was at an end.

But by Mill, Grabe, and Wetstein, it is faid, that Luke published his Gofpel at Alexandria, in Egypt. Let us obferve their proofs.

First of all (e) Mill and (f) Wetstein quote Oecumenius, as faying, that Luke preached at Thebes in Egypt. Nevertheless I do not find it in Oecumenius. And I fuppofe, that Simeon Metaphraftes, a writer of no great credit, in the tenth centurie, in his life of St. Luke, is their authority. For he is the writer quoted by (g) Grabe, though he does it cautioufly. Nor does Metaphraftes fay, that St. Luke published his Gospel in Egypt. He fuppofeth it to have been writ before he went thither. For he fays, that (b) when Luke preached there, he fometimes argued from the Old Teftament, and fometimes from the Gospel, which he had writ.

It may be reckoned probable therefore, that this journey of St. Luke into Egypt is a mere fiction, a thing without ground afcribed to him by fome, after he had left Paul, and after he had writ his Gospel.

Nevertheless

(α) Συνδιάγων δ ̓ ἐν ῥώμῃ τῷ παύλῳ, ἐπανήκει τῇ ἑλλάδι αυθις. κ. λ. Niceph. 1. 2. cap. 43. p. 210. (b)

(b) Ibid. C.

(c) Puto autem Româ iiffe Lucam in Achaiam, atque ibi ab eo confcriptos quos habemus libros. Quod et Hieronymus prodidit. Grot. Pref. in Evang. Luc.

(d) Utrumque anno Chrifti 59. S. Paulo nondum ex carcere dimiffo, fcripfiffe videtur. In Luca H. L. p. 25.

(e) Certe poft difceffum a Romà Libyam petiiffe noftrum hunc Evangeliftam, ac apud Thebanos verbum prædicaffe, teftatur Oecumenius comment. in Lucam. Mill. Prol. n. 114.

...

(f) vel fecundum Hieronymum... in Achaia Bocotiæque finibus, qui tamen Thebas Egyptias, ubi tefte Oecumenio Lucas prædicavit, pro Boeotiis accepiffe videtur. Weft. N. T. Tom. i. p. 643.

(g) Taceo recentiores, veluti Simconem Metaphraften, qui in Vita S. Lucæ Græce et Latine edita ad calcem commentariorum Oecumenii. p. 857. D. ita fcribit: Totam Libyam percurrens in Egyptum pervenit. &c. Grabe Spic. T. i. p. 33.

(6) Καὶ νῦν μὲν ἀπὸ τῆς παλαιᾶς παράγων γραφῆς, νῦν δὲ ἀφ' ὅπερ ἔτος άνε τάξατο ἐυαγγελία διερμηνέυων αυτοῖς τὰ περὶ χρις. Sim. Metaphr. de Vit, S. Luce p. 858. B.

Nevertheless thofe learned men (i) have been pleased to argue from this paffage of Metaphraftes, that Jerome miftook Thebes in Boeotia for Thebes in Egypt. Which appears to me to be altogether arbitrarie. I fhould rather think, that fome later writer miftook the place, and instead of Thebes in Bocötia, thought of Thebes in Egypt, a very famous city, and better known to himself than the other.

It may be of use to take here more at large the paffage of Nicephorus, in part quoted juft now. "Luke (k) fays he, was born at Antioch, which "is in Syria, by profeffion a Phyfician, and alfo well skilled in painting. "He came to Paul at Thebes with it's feven gates: where renouncing "the errour of his ancestors, he embraced the Chriftian doctrine, and "of a Phyfician for the body, became a Phyfician for the Soul. He like"wife wrote a Gospel, as Paul dictated it to him, and also the Acts of "the Apostles. Whilft Paul was at Rome, [or, When Paul had been "at Rome,] he returned into (D) Greece." This, I think, must confirm our fuppofition, that fomebody mistook Thebes in Egypt for Thebes in Boeotia. It is plain, that Nicephorus means Thebes of Greece. And he feems to have fupposed, in this place, that Luke was converted about the time he came to be with Paul in Macedonia and Greece. See Acts xvi. 10. He fays, Luke returned into Greece. Therefore the Thebes before-mentioned must have been in that countrey. 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 it's feven gates. So (1) Thebes in Boeotia was fometimes called.

Secondly. Another argument, that St. Luke's Gospel was writ at Alexandria, is, that (m) it is fo faid in the Syriac verfion.

But those titles are of no great weight. Before the three Catholic Epiftles, received by the Syrians, is a title or infcription, importing, that (n) they were writ by the Apostles, James, Peter, and John, witnesses

of

(i) Neque aliunde in aliam fententiam ductum arbitror Hieronymum, qui in Achaia Boeotiæque finibus hoc Evangelium conditum ait, quam quod feu lecto, feu ex traditione alicubi accepto, Lucam apud Thebanos prædicaffe, ac confcripfiffe Evangelium, incolas iftos fuiffe exiftimarit Thebarum Boeotiarum, non autem Thebarum urbis Ægypti fuperioris, Mill. Prol. n. 115. Vid. et Werftein. citat. fupra not. (f).

(k) Niceph. 1. 2. cap. 43. p. 210. A. B.

(D) All must be fenfible, that this florie of Nicephorus is very ftrange. For in one place he without hefitation speaks of St. Luke, as the companion of Cleophas, mentioned Luke xxiv. 18. Lib. 1. cap. 34. p. 117. A. And he feveral times fpeaks of Mark and Luke, as two of Chrift's feventy difciples. Lib. 2. cap. 43. et in cap. 45. p. 213. B. xj ix tŵv ó dvo irégus, págxor xj

λυκᾶν.

() Vid. Cellar. Geogr. Antiq. lib. z. cap. 13.

(m) Ita quippe fonat titulus ejus in verfione Syriaca, ante mille annos edita: Evangelium Luca Evangeliitæ, quod protulit et evangelizavit Græce in Alexandria magna. Grabe Spic. T. i. p. 33. Conf. Mill. Prol. n.

114.

(n) Sanctorum Apoftolorum, Jacobi, Petri, Johannis, transfigurationis Chrifti fpectatorum, epiftolæ fingulæ.

of our Saviour's transfiguration, taking James to be the fon of Zebedee: whereas the epiftle of James could not be writ till long after his death, who was beheaded by Herod Agrippa, as related Acts xii. 1. 2. And St. Paul's fecond epiftle to Timothie (o) is faid by the fame Syrians, to have been writ at Rome, and fent by Luke. Which is manifeftly contrarie to the epiftle itself. See 2 Tim. iv. 11. 12.

St. Luke's Gofpel is also faid in the Perfic verfion, (p) to have been writ at Alexandria. But then it is allowed, that this version was made from the Syriac, not from the Greek.

Thirdly, it is alfo urged, that there are epigraphai or infcriptions in fome manuscripts, at the end of this Gofpel, where it is faid, that it was writ in the great city of Alexandria.

But it is well known, that thofe infcriptions at the end of the books of the New Teftament are of little value, divers of them containing ma nifest mistakes: and they are in late manuscripts only, or however, fuch as are not of the highest antiquity.

Fourthly. Grabe (q) likewife infifts upon a paffage in the Apoftolical Conftitutions, where the Apostles are brought in, relating what Bishops had been appointed by them in their own time. And it is faid, that in Alexandria, Anianus, the firft Bifhop, was ordained by the Evangelift Mark, and Abilius by Luke, alfo Evangelift. And (r) Mill in like manner quotes the conftitutions, after Grabe, though almoft afhamed fo to do.

But it should be confidered, that the author of that work is anonymous, and unknown, and his time not certain. He fays what he pleafeth. And has been convicted of falfhood in fuch accounts (s) as thefe, as well as in others. It has very much the appearance of fiction, that the firft Bishop of Alexandria fhould be ordained by Mark, and the fecond by Luke. And poffibly it is a fiction of the writer himself. For I do not recollect, that this is faid any where elfe. Epiphanius, as well as more ancient writers, must have been totally unacquainted with this ordination, and with St. Luke's journeys in Egypt. For he fays, that (t).

this

(0) Ad Timotheum vero fecunda Romæ fcripta, fuit miffa per eundem Lucam Medicum et Evangeliftam. Ebedjefu Catal. ap. Asseman. Bib. Or. T. iii. p. 12.

(p) Et in verfione Perfica, quam tamen non ex tranflatam exiftimat admodum R. Waltonus: lingua Græca Ægyptiaca in Alexandria fcripfit.

Græco, fed Syriaco textu
Evangelium Lucæ, quod
Grab. ubi fupr. p. 33.

(2) Atque hoc non parum confirmatur ex eo quod lib. vii. Conft. Apost. Clement. cap. 46. Lucas dicatur Alexandriæ fuiffe, ibique Epifcopum Avilium ordinaffe. Urbis Alexandrinorum Anianus primus a Marco Evangelifta ordinatus eft, fecundus vero Avilius a Luca, et ipfo Evangelifta. Grabe ibid.

(r) Et fi Conftitutionum Apoftolicarum feu auctori feu confarcinatori, fides, in ecclefia Alexandria, a Marco primum fundata... Avilium Aniani primi Epifcopi fuccefforem, ordinaverit. Mill. Prol. n. 141.

(s) See in this work vol. viii. p. 352.

(t) Hær. L. i. num. xi. p. 433.

this Evangelift preached the gofpel in Dalmatia, Gaul, Italie, and Macedonia, but especially in Gaul.

Du Pin having taken notice of what is faid relating to this matter in the infcriptions, which are in fome manufcripts, the titles in the Syriac and Perfic verfions, Metaphraftes, and the Conftitutions, concludes: "All (u) thefe monuments deserve no credit. We ought to adhere to "what is faid by Jerome, as most probable: that this Gospel was com"pofed 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 compofed, or finifhed, and publifhed his Gofpel, and the Acts of the Apostles.

His Character.

VII. I would now offer fomething by way of character of this Evangelift. But I fhall do it briefly, and cautioufly. And if I mention doubtful things doubtfully, I may hope to escape cenfure. It is probable, that he is Lucius, mentioned Rom. xvi. 21. If fo, he was related to St. Paul the Apostle. And it is not unlikely, that that Lucius is the fame 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 requifite qualification for writing a hiftorie of Chrift and the early preaching of his Apostles to advantage. Which, certainly, St. Luke has performed. I do not perceive fufficient reason to believe, that Luke was one of Chrift's seventy difciples. But he may have been one of the two, whom our Lord met in the way to Emmaus, on the day of his refurrection, as related Luke xxiv. 13... 35. He is exprefsly ftiled by the Apoftle his fellow-laborer. Philem. ver. 24. If he be the perfon intended Col. iv. 14. (which feems very probable,) he was, or had been, by profeffion a Phyfician. And he was greatly valued by the Apoftle, who calls him beloved. Which must be reckoned much to his honour. For nothing could be fo likely to recommend any man to St. Paul's esteem, as faithfulneffe to the interefts of pure religion. It is undoubted, that he accompanied Paul, when he first went into Macedonia. Acts xvi. 8. . . 4 And though we are not fully affured, that he continued to be with him. conftantly afterwards: we know, that he went with the Apostle from Greece through Macedonia, and Afia, to Jerufalem, 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 difpofed, than one of the first preachers of the gofpel to the Gentils. We do not exactly know, when St. Luke formed the defign of writing his two books. But, probably, they are the labour of feveral 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 compleating his collections, and filling up his plan. For in that time unquestionably Luke converfed with many early

40.